EÖTVÖS LORÁND TUDOMÁNYEGYETEM

BÖLCSÉSZETTUDOMÁNYI KAR

DOKTORI DISSZERTÁCIÓ

HASZNOS ANDREA

GRAECO-COPTICA: GREEK AND COPTIC CLAUSE PATTERNS

A GÖRÖG NYELV HATÁSA A KOPTRA: GÖRÖG NYELVI HATÁSOK A KOPT

MELLÉKMONDATOKBAN

Történelemtudományok Doktori Iskola

A doktori iskola vezetője: Dr. Gergely Jenő

Egyiptológia Doktori Program

A program vezetője: Dr. Bács Tamás

A doktori bizottság tagjai:

Elnök: Dr. Sz. Jónás Ilona DSc., professor emerita

Bírálók: Dr. Peter Nagel professor

Dr. Tóth Péter PhD

Titkár: Dr. Schreiber Gábor PhD

Tagok: Dr. Takács Gábor PhD

Dr. Liptay Éva PhD (póttag)

Dr. Horváth Judit, egyetemi docens (póttag)

Témavezető: Dr. Luft Ulrich DSc, egyetemi tanár

Budapest, 2009.

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Texts and Editions Examined III

Acknowledgements V

0. Introduction 1

0.1 Loanwords and Bilingualism 6

0.2 Translations from Greek 11

1. Clauses with i(/na and Clauses with jekas

and the Infinitive Constructions 14

1.1 Final Clause/Clause of Purpose 15

1.1.1 Clause Patterns 20

1.1.1.1 Clause-with-conjunction patterns 20

1.1.1.1.1 jekas and je with future 3 or 2 21

1.1.1.1.2 jekas plus conjunctive 22

1.1.1.1.3 mhpote (and mhpws) plus conjunctive 24

1.1.1.1.4 xinas plus future 3 25

1.1.1.2 Clause Conjugations 26

1.1.1.2.1 The future conjunctive 26

1.1.1.2.2 The conjunctive 30

1.1.1.2.3 The limitative ¥ante 30

1.1.1.3 The circumstantial 31

1.1.2. Infinitive Constructions 35

1.1.2.1 Greek infinitive – Coptic e+infinitive construction 37

1.1.2.2. Greek tou=/ ei)j/ pro/j+infinitive 38

1.1.2.3 Constructions after verbs of motion 40

1.1.3 Greek – Coptic Equivalents 41

Conclusions 46

1.2 Object Clauses and Infinitive Constructions after Verbs of Exhorting 50

1.2.1 Clause-with-conjunction vs. infinitive patterns 51

1.2.1.1 The clause pattern xinas + conjunctive/future 3 57

1.2.2 The conjunctive 58

1.2.3 The optative 59

II

1.3 Subject Clauses and Infinitive Constructions 59

1.3.1 Clause pattern vs. infinitive construction 60

1.3.2 Greek – Coptic equivalents 63

1.3.3 Others 64

1.3.3.1 The circumstantial 64

1.3.3.2 The conditional 64

1.3.3.3 The conjunctive 64

Conclusions (Object and Subject) 65

1.4 Complementary and Epexegetic Clauses/Infinitive Constructions 67

1.4.1 Clauses vs. infinitive constructions 67

1.4.1.1 jekase plus conjunctive pattern 71

1.4.1.2 The xinas plus conjunctive pattern 72

1.4.1.3 The xwste + infinitive pattern 73

1.4.2 The conjunctive 75

Conclusions 77

2. Clauses/Infinitives of Result 79

2.1 Clause of Result or Infinitive of Result? 79

2.2 Greek – Coptic equivalents 79

2.3 The infinitive construction and the conjunctive after xwste 81

2.3.1 The conjunctive after xwste and other Greek conjunctions / particles/

/modifiers 83

2.4 Final clause patterns 85

2.5 The e plus infinitive pattern 86

2.6 ¥ante 87

Conclusions 87

Final Conclusions 89

Appendix 95

Bibliography 137

III

LIST OF TEXTS AND EDITIONS EXAMINED

Gospel of Matthew HORNER, 1969

PEREZ, 1984

SCHENKE, 1981

ALAND ET AL., 1994

NESTLE – ALAND, 1993

GRIESBACH, 1909

ALFORD, 1849

Gospel of John HORNER, 1969

QUECKE, 1984

THOMPSON, 1924

ALAND ET AL., 1994

NESTLE – ALAND, 1993

GRIESBACH, 1909

ALFORD, 1849

Epistle to the Romans HORNER, 1969

ORLANDI, – QUECKE, 1974

ALAND ET AL., 1994

NESTLE – ALAND, 1993

GRIESBACH, 1909

ALFORD, 1849

Pachom: LEFORT, 1956

Instruction Concerning a Spiteful Monk (Spiteful)

Instruction on the Six Days of the Passover (Passover)

Fragments

Precepts

IV

Precepts and Institutes

Theodore: LEFORT, 1956

Instruction 3

Horsiese: LEFORT, 1956

Instructions

Regulations

Letters

Shenoute: YOUNG, 1993

Young 4

Young 5

Young 6-7

Young, 21

Young 28

Young 30

Elanskaya 1.1.b.707 ELANSKAYA, 1991

Elanskaya I.1.b.716

Elanskaya I.1.b.658

Adversus graecos (Adv graecos) LEIPOLDT, 1908

Ad philosophum gentilem (Ad phil)

De eis qui e monasterio discesserunt (Monast disc)

British Library Oriental (BLO) SHISHA-HALEVY, 1975

V

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my Doktorvater, Professor Ulrich Luft for his constant support and

selection of research topic and also for making it possible for me to go and study in Bonn.

I would like to thank Professor Peter Nagel for his help and guidance in Bonn and at the

Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms Universität Bonn, and for the specification of my research

topic to Coptic clauses. I am very grateful to the Gertrud-und-Alexander-Böhlig-Stiftung

and the Brigitte und Martin Krause Stiftung for their financial support in my two

semesters in Bonn. I am also grateful to Professor László Török for his personal and

professional support. I would like to thank Dr. Tamás A. Bács for the trust he put in me

and his support. And I am also grateful to Árpád Miklós Nagy.

And mostly, I am grateful to my husband and son for their endless love, patience and

support.

1

„A nyelv sajátságai a mondat sajátságaiban fészkelnek”

Sámuel Brassai

0. Introduction

The present study joins the long line of works dedicated to the examination of the Coptic

language. Quite understandably, it was self-evident in the scholarly world before the

beginning of the 19th century that Egyptian philology means the study of the Coptic

language as there was no access to hieroglyphic texts and their language at the time. The

history of the study of Coptic, according to Étienne Quatremère, starts with Theseus

Ambrosius in the 16th century1 who studied other languages of the Near East also,2

however, the beginnings thereof in Europe might be placed even to the 15th century when

Bernhard von Breydenbach published the first printed Coptic alphabet in his Peregrinatio

in Terram Sanctum (1486) after his journey to the Holy Land and Egypt.3 Also quite long

is the history of trying to interpret the relationship so evidently present between the last

phase of the Egyptian language and Greek. Athanasius Kircher in the 17th century,

studying the Coptic language tried to define this relationship and came to the rather

interesting conclusion that Greek originates in Egyptian, more precisely in Coptic, an

opinion he himself refuted later.4 Today, the study of this relationship is very intense and

advanced, but still far from concluded.

However, “the era when Coptic was the only known phase of the Egyptian language and

Egyptian philology was synonymous with the study of Coptic” ended in fact before Jean-

François Champollion’s decipherment of the hieroglyphs, with Étienne Quatremère’s

1808 publication,5 which discusses the – then not completely new – theory that Coptic

must be the original language of Egypt, the continuation of that of the pharaohs. After

Champollion’s achievement, then, “the centre of scholarly interest moved inevitably to

”The characteristics of a language nest in the characteristics of the sentence.”1 POLOTSKY, 1987b: 5.2 He started the study of Syriac in Europe, publishing the first printed Syriac grammar in 1539, Introductioin Chalaicam linuam, Syriacum atque Armenicam et decem alias linguas, COWPER ET AL., 1858: ix.3 As argued in IRSAY-NAGY, 2006: esp. 129-130.4 Quod enim Kircherus in Prodromio Copto linguam Graecam ab Aegyptia sive Copta fluxisse asserit,refutatione non eget, cum ipse a viris doctis monitus, & rei evidentia convictus, errorum hunc revocaritLing. Copt. Restit. p. 507. cited from August Pfeiffer’s Critica Sacra (1702), brought to my attention byProfessor Ulrich Luft. Reference is made therein to Kircher’s Prodromus… and Lingua Aegyptiaca…, seeBibliography.

2

Ancient Egypt, (…) one must speak of a rift between Pagan and Christian Egypt”6 – a

regrettable separation of studying ancient Egyptian and studying Coptic took place.

Christian Carl Josias Bunsen, diplomat and a scholar of many interests, already warns in

the first volume of his five-volume Ägyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte that “all hope of

significant progress depends on the indispensible prerequisite that Egyptology shall be

accompanied by an equally thorough Coptology”.7 According to him the event that made

this separation final was the 1845 appointment of Moritz Gotthilf Schwartze Professor of

Coptic Language and Literature at the University of Berlin, where Richard Lepsius was

Professor extraordinarius of Egyptology – that created a Coptology independent of

Egyptology.8 Bunsen’s Koptologie term refers to the Coptic language not to “Coptic

studies in a wider sense, which did not yet exist”9 – and from a “language oriented”10

approach, it really is a mistake to place it outside of Egyptology. The division of

Egyptology and Coptology can only be argued for from a “culture oriented”11 viewpoint,

as the cultural, religious and art historical studies of the two indeed require different

knowledge, although it is only natural that a country of 5,000 years of recorded history

should have quite different periods. The term ‘Coptic Studies’ was born in 1976 at the

First International Congress of Coptology in Cairo, entitled “Colloquium on the Future of

Coptic Studies”,12 and includes the study of the Coptic language, literature, architecture

and archaeology, art history, and religion; and also today, Greek-Egyptian language

contact problems are an integral part of it.

As opposed to Adolf Erman’s statement that Coptic is “the only phase of the Egyptian

language which we really understand”,13 I would like to emphasize that we are far from

understanding it fully, and there is no consensus on certain critical points among scholars;

it is especially true of studying its relationship with Greek.

5 POLOTSKY, 1987b: 5, referring to the work entitled: Recherches critiques et historiques sur la langue et lalittérature de l’Égypte.6 POLOTSKY, 1987b: 5.7 This quotation comes from the English translation of the mentioned book (Egypt’s Place in UniversalHistory, see Bunsen, 1848-67 in Bibliography), but as it was not accessible for me, I am quoting it fromPOLOTSKY, 1987: 12.8 POLOTSKY, 1987b: 12.9 POLOTSKY, 1987b: 12.10 POLOTSKY, 1987b: 6.11 POLOTSKY, 1987b: 6.12 The publication thereof, WILSON, 1978.13 In the Preface to his Grammar, quoted in Breasted’s translation, 1894: iii.

3

Focusing on that issue now, Coptic scholarship is still quite far from having an agreement

on how and where the Egyptian language was affected by Greek. It is indeed an intriguing

question whether outside of loanwords Greek had any influence on Coptic, and great

scholars have raised that question several times: Hans-Friedrich Weiß in 1966 said

“Griechische sowohl hinsichtlich des Sprachstiles und der Syntax mehr oder weniger

deutliche Spuren hinterlassen hat”14 and further, Hans Jakob Polotsky in 1987: „Daß der

Einfluß des Griechischen sich nicht auf den Wortschatz, und auch auf dem Gebiete der

Syntax nicht auf den Gebrauch griechischer Partikeln beschränkt haben wird, ist öfters

vermutet, aber nie konkret glaubhaft gemacht worden.“15 The Greek loanwords are rather

clearly visible and evident traces of influence, drawing conclusions on syntactical

influence, on the other hand is indeed all the more difficult as the method best applicable

is not at hand. In bilingual situations when two (or even more) languages are in contact

and interference is possible, it is measured by comparing the individual languages to their

varieties elsewhere, where no language contact exists.16 The difficulty with measuring

any influencing by Greek on Coptic is that Coptic has no variety outside of Egypt, i.e.

free of Greek contact.17 Peter Nagel, when making his valuable observations on Greek

influence, also points out: ”Wenn man sich klarmacht, dass die koptische Schriftssprache

direkt oder indirekt dem Griechischen verpflichtet ist, so ist der Einfluss der griechischen

Syntax um so schwerer wägbar, als eine nichtgräzisierte, also „rein“ koptische

Schriftssprache, nicht existiert.“18

What is certain, however, is that after Alexander the Great had set foot on Egyptian soil, a

long-lived bilingual situation came into being raising the issues of peoples in contact and

languages in contact, and with the arrival of Christian Greek texts and their translations,

also “texts in contact“.19 The fact that Greek came ’from the above’ must never be

forgotten when trying to understand the motivations for its impact on the Egyptian

language, the totally different nature and ’genetics’ of the two languages is but a

secondary factor: “it is the sociolinguistic history of the speakers, and not the structure of

14 WEIß, 1966: 183.15 POLOTSKY, 1987a: 158.16 BYNON, 1997: 220.17 An examination in the other way around, i.e. studying Greek in such an environment – althoughnaturally has its difficulties – has its more clear-cut criteria because Greek has other varieties, as HÄGG,1978 makes some notes on Nubian Greek, and how the influence of the native tongue can be pinpointed.18 NAGEL, 1971: 348.19 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1990: 100/fn.4.

4

their language, that is the primary determinant of the linguistic outcome of language

contact.“20

The aim of the present paper is to make observations on syntax and stylistics in translated

and original Coptic literature, sifting out the syntactic patterns showing Greek influence

in one or both text groups, showing how certain patterns came to be used in Coptic clearly

through translations,21 and raising the question whether those syntactic influences which

came to the Egyptian language through the bilingual situation can be detected with

certainty.22 With these observations I would also like to help develop the criterium system

needed to determine whether a Coptic text was written in Coptic or Greek originally. I

think one such criterium was introduced by Siegfried Morenz who studied the Nqi–

construction23 and made valuable observations on its different use in translations (word

order) and original writings (emphasis or the introduction of long subjects) – Karlheinz

Schüssler also adding to this, noting: “there is no doubt that the Christians introduced this

word in order to be able to follow the Greek word order in translation”.24 Such

observations do exist, however, a comprehensive work on the criteria would be very

useful.

In the present study the final clauses, consecutive clauses, object clauses/infinitive

constructions after verbs of exhorting and subject clauses/infinitive constructions will be

examined from the point of view of syntactic grecism in translations and in original

Coptic texts.

Thus, summing up, translated and original Coptic writings will be examined in the

chapters and sections to follow:

1. this way it may be possible to see whether there is a difference in the measure of

Greek syntactical influence in the two types of text, i.e. clause patterns of

translated texts exhibit a greater resemblance to Greek clause patterns, while the

original Coptic sentences might exhibit resemblance to Greek to a lesser degree

and of different type, and

20 THOMASON-KAUFMAN, 1988: 35.21 On the importance of ”umfangreiche und systematische” studies of the impact of Coptic translationactivity, see FEDER, 2006: 301-303 where he lists works of Polotsky, Lefort, Mink and Funk as startingstudies in this direction but so far no comprehensive study on the topic has been completed.22 As I think also the bilingual situation might have had impact on syntax, not only on vocabulary.23 MORENZ, 1952.24 SCHÜSSLER, 2008: 56. Its extensive use is undoubtedly the ’product’ of the Coptic language phase,however, SETHE, 1925: 295/fn.3 draws our attention to one occurrence in Demotic (in the form n-gr).

5

2. these investigations may be of help in creating the criteria for distinguishing with

certainty a Coptic text originally written in Coptic and a translated Coptic text

originally written in Greek: to determine which constructions and syntactical

elements are characteristic of the text of one or the other.

In the most fundamental grammars, Till and Layton, the text base is Coptic Biblical texts,

i.e. translated, and some Coptic authors with no distinction between the two; even such

syntactical phenomena as conjunctions (even Greek) plus clause patterns, which in some

cases are quite different in the two text types, are handled in one group and it is not

explained or even observed where some of these patterns come from. Naturally, the two

text types represent the same language and separating the two cannot be an aim, but such

an approach in a descriptive (and prescriptive) grammar which does not mention or try to

account for certain conspicuous syntactical phenomena, especially in the case of Coptic

which is laden by its relationship with Greek, is questionable.25 Even with these critical

remarks, I would like to emphasize that the above mentioned grammars are outstanding

and still the basic grammatical reference.

It gives a much more precise picture about the language if it is made clear which syntactic

patterns are the result of the contact with another language, just as it is evident from the

beginning of the study of the Coptic language that Greek loanwords are and should be

identified in Coptic. Why not do the same with larger syntactic units? Taking the

presumption that original and translated Coptic writings will be different in (some)

syntactical aspects, we can examine the two text types separately and compare them.

Identifying the patterns present or more characteristic in one or the other will refine our

picture of the language and will be lehrreich about translation techniques, and might give

us a ‘handbook’ to deciding whether a text was originally written in Greek or Coptic.

It must be admitted, though, that a number of questions will still remain unanswered, as

translated Coptic literature (the Bible) obviously made its influence on Coptic authors.

That is why Georg Steindorff was so enthusiastic about the Coptic documentary texts

edited just at his time: “Sind sie doch die einzigen uns erhaltenen, größeren koptischen

25 This objection is also raised by Glenn Snyder in her review on LAYTON’s Grammar, SNYDER: 2005, 2:„The question is not whether categories should be used, for they must be, but which categories are used,why, and for what ends. Here one has to decide between various criteria: simplicity of presentation, abilityto account for complex variation (e.g., in orthography or an author’s style), translation into a targetlanguage (whose grammatical values and categories do not correspond to the translated language), and sofroth.”

6

Sprachdenkmäler, die nicht selbst Übersetzungen aus dem Griechischen und Arabischen

oder doch durch Übersetzungen aus dem Griechischen, vornehmlich durch die Bibel, in

ihrer Sprachweise beeinflußt sind. Sie zeigen uns zum ersten und letzten Male nach den

demotischen Texten einen rein ägyptischen Satzbau.”26 Although there may indeed be

syntactical differences between literary and non-literary Coptic texts – the syntax of the

latter (but also the former) must still be given some attention27 – I would reject together

with Sebastian Richter28 the idea of a “rein ägyptischer Satzbau” in Coptic, as – even

taking translations out of the picture – already long before Coptic, Egyptian literacy as

well as everyday life had been interwoven with Greek.

Here another issue, that of spoken versus written language arises29 which is a genuine

problem of modern scholarship since it studies a dead language with only written records,

thus it is rather difficult to determine the use of loanwords or “loan-patterns” in real

spoken Coptic.

0.1 Loanwords and Bilingualism

The most conspicuous, immediately visible influence of contact with Greek and the

intense bilingual situation is beyond doubt the ’borrowing’ of the Greek alphabet. It is in

itself a great change in the history of a language, and in Egyptian in particular, where:

”Das vorkoptische Ägyptisch wurde in solchen Zeichen und Zeichengruppen fixiert, die

nur den Konsonanten oder Konsonantengruppen darstellen und folglich allein das Skelett

des Lautkörpers wiedergeben. (…) Die Einbeziehung vokalischer Zeichen war

schriftgeschichtlich ein revolutionärer Akt und stellte die Ägyptische Sprache vor eine

neue Ausgangsposition. Sie führte erstmals zur Kongruenz zwischen dem Sprachverlauf

und seiner zeichenhaften Darstellung.“30

For the second sight already, the next – and most studied – phenomenon, that of Greek

loanwords in Coptic and their very intense use becomes evident. Although it is self-

evident that their form, semantic field, and syntactic behaviour (incorporation in the

26 STEINDORFF, 1891: 1, cited from RICHTER, 2004: 146 as the ZÄS volume was not available in Budapest.27 The contribution that the study of non-literary texts have cannot be doubted, see also the examinationthereof in CRUM, 1930: 124-127.28 RICHTER, 2004: 146; also NAGEL, 1971: 348 who warns that even the first Coptic authors were largelyinfluenced by translation literature (e.g. the New Testament).29 This problem is dealt with by RICHTER, 2008; RICHTER, 2004.

7

conjugation system, compatibilities, etc.) should be given systematic study, there still is

no comprehensive dictionary of Greek loanwords in Coptic, as Crum did not include the

words of Greek origin in his essential dictionary it has been a desideratum ever since.

Alexander Böhlig in 1955 reported that he is working on a dictionary, ”ein Gesamtlexikon

aller griechishen Wörter im Koptischen mit Belegstellen und Schreibvarianten

beabsichtigt und als Ergänzung zu W.E. Crums Coptic Dictionary gedacht ist”31; later, in

1969 Hans-Friedrich Weiß published a ”Probeartikel” about the preparation for such a

lexicon.32 But even today, we have only a large index rather than a lexicon, as Monika

Hasitzka and Helmut Satzinger33 point out in connection with Hans Förster’s dictionary,34

and that based on only non-literary texts.

Greek loanwords are indeed present in great numbers in Coptic texts (one fifth of Coptic

vocabulary35), and in this respect there does not seem to be much difference, at least not

in the number of them in original vs. translated writings.36 The question whether these

words were ’put’ into Coptic vocabulary through the immense translation activity37 or

they penetrated the language in the long bilingual situation, naturally arises. Paul Kahle,

to whom we are indebted for – among other things – the Middle-Egyptian dialect, had the

opinion that Greek words came into Coptic only through the translations of the Christian

texts, especially the Bible,38 Alexander Böhlig, on the other hand, as well as Louis-

Théophil Lefort, expressed the view “daß bei der Herausbildung einer koptischen

Schriftsprache eine große Menge griechischer Wörter verwendet wurden, die durch den

bilinguen Zustand des ägyptischen Lebens auch Allgemeingut der ägyptischen

Bevölkerung geworden waren.“39 Peter Nagel expressed a similar opinion in his 1971

work.40 This had also been Arthur Vööbus’ opinion, who in his time thought it impossible

to answer the question of the origin of these words satisfactorily, but said “it would be a

30 NAGEL, 1971: 329.31 BÖHLIG, 1955:90.32 WEIß, 1969: 79-80.33 HASITZKA – SATZINGER, 2004/5: 19.34 FÖRSTER, 2002.35 VERBEECK, 1991: 1168.36 “Koptische Originalschriften weisen den gleichen oder höheren Prozentsatz an griechischen Wörtern(…) auf wie Übersetzungstexte.“ NAGEL, 1971: 333.37 ”Can, indeed, the translation-work of the Biblical books be made responsible for the invasion of Greekwords into the Coptic language?” poses the poetic question VÖÖBUS, 1954: 225.38 BÖHLIG, 1955: 90.39 BÖHLIG, 1955: 90.40 NAGEL, 1971: esp. 333-334.

8

mistake to ascribe the whole phenomenon to the translation of the Biblical texts“,41 and

his argument is very convincing saying that hellenism in Egypt had been present long

before Christianity and the loanwords seen in Coptic are not confined to the Christian

religion but cover all fields of life.42 The fact that in Demotic hardly any Greek loanwords

can be found43 is not an argument for the opinion that Greek words were not in use in the

Egyptian language and were only taken over with the start and in the course of the

translations of the Bible. Demotic, unlike Coptic, was becoming a more and more rigid,

almost artificial language register,44 and had gone out of everyday use after the first

century AD and “had gradually become a lingistic register connected to Egyptian religion

and magic.”45 And as such it was characterized by ‘purism’,46 it was not open to foreign

linguistic influence – as opposed to the spoken idiom. I think the NT translations

themselves show best how much colloquial Egyptian was interwoven with Greek: these

translations which were made “aus missionarischen Zwecken”,47 i.e. for the part of the

society who did not speak Greek good enough to be able to read the Gospels in Greek,48

abound with Greek loanwords.49 Using Greek words in translations prepared for the non-

speakers of Greek makes sense only if we assume that these words, or most of them, were

part of the used vocabulary,50 otherwise the translations are of no great use. In Coptic, as

a new language phase in the history of the Egyptian language and as a literary idiom, after

so many centuries again the spoken and the written idiom met inasmuch as Copts started

to write down the spoken idiom again, rather than using Demotic or Greek.51 A similar

41 VÖÖBUS, 1954: 225-226.42 VÖÖBUS, 1954: 226.43 CLARYSSE, 1987: 10-12, points out that Demotic vocabulary is remarkably independent of Greek, thefew Greek words that do exist in it, belong to the sphere of administration and the army.44 HINTZE, 1947: 87.45 RICHTER, 2008a: 741.46 NAGEL, 1971: 333.47 NAGEL, 1971: 333.48 i.e. ”beyond the boundaries of urban settlements, the boundaries of linguistic hellenization” RICHTER,2008a: 741; also VÖÖBUS, 1954: 213; meaning that the part of the population outside hellenized citiescould not read Greek or understand Greek sentences, but: ”Greek influence was well established and strongeverywhere, and the development of the beaurocratic system inherited from the Ptolemies, coupled withthe augmented responsibilities of the local authorities, required a certain degree of knowledge of Greek andliteracy even in the smaller towns and villages.“ RUBENSON, 1995: 97.49 On the question of ”Fremd-oder Lehnwort” see WEIß, 1966.50 cf. NAGEL, 1971: 333.51 Before the birth of Coptic, there was an interesting language ”gap” in the everyday life of Egypt and ”theuse of Coptic for letter-writing allowed monolingual Egyptians for the first time in centuries tocommunicate over distances without the assistance of translators, since Demotic, the former written normof Egyptian, had disappeared from everyday contexts after the first century CE” (RICHTER, 2008a: 741) –and thus from about 100 A.D. to the third century, natives had to communicate in Greek letters even if bothsender and receiver needed a translator for that (RICHTER, 2008a: 742).

9

‘language reform’ took place earlier, marking the turn of Middle-Egyptian and Late

Egyptian. Such sudden changes take place from time to time in the written language,52 a

characteristic feature of which is permanence, as opposed to the spoken idiom which

changes continually (much like a living being). Quite understandably, the two must be

adjusted now and then for people to be able to understand the written idiom. Now, in the

time of Late Egyptian, a significant difference between written and spoken language had

developed through the centuries and the Amarna reform ‘legitimized’ the spoken

language.53 Coptic also reflects the spoken Egyptian idiom of its time, unlike Demotic,

and so its vocabulary is a very good indicator of the presence of Greek loanwords in the

language, although it must be admitted that the translation activity might have brought in

some additional words (technical terms of Christianity, among others) and enhanced the

use of others.

On the other hand, more recent works raise further questions to consider, for example

Tonio Sebastian Richter in his paper at the Leipzig Conference.54 In his view, we cannot

see the real picture about how much these Greek words were in fact used, as only a

narrow register is represented in the written texts, which gives us an “impressionist”

picture.55 It is indeed necessary to classify the examined texts as to date, and genre –

literary or non-literary –56 and also writer and intended audience57/receiver to get a more

‘clear’ picture on how, how much, and who used Greek loanwords – in what form, with

what semantic field, etc.

The form of the Greek loanwords in Coptic has always been an issue as they clearly

display a look different from that known in classical Attic. In 1927 Henri Peter Blok

mentioned as a novum the situation that scholars no longer consider the ’strange’ forms as

“Transkriptionsfehler“ of the unlearned monks, “wie es z.B. Amélineau tat, einfach

emendierte“ the problematic Greek words.58 Naturally, the forms employed by the Copts

come mostly from Greek itself, for their difference from classical forms koine Greek is

52 HINTZE, 1947: 85.53 HINTZE, 1947: 85; TAKÁCS, 1999: 315.54 RICHTER, 2008b.55 RICHTER, 2008b: 2.56 According to Richter, three issues must be considered here: 1. the spoken vs. written issue – non-literaryand late Coptic texts are promising from that aspect, 2. the attitude towards Greek loans of translated vs.genuine Coptic texts, 3. the date of the texts is important: there seems to have been a decline in the use ofGreek loans from the 9th century onwards, RICHTER, 2008b: 2.57 cf. RUBENSON, 1995: 98-99.58 BLOK, 1927: 50.

10

mostly responsible,59 and it is enough to see a grammar of that60 to be able to account for

such vowel changes that are so familiar to the reader of Coptic texts: h(donh/ xudonh;

ei)rh/nh oirhnh; a)naxwrhth/j anaywriths etc. Further, while mostly the pronounced

forms were taken over61 and written down,62 the very same vocabulary items are used

with different spellings – this inconsistence, the various spellings are probably the result

of sometimes writing down the pronounced form, on other occasions the right spelling,

the original Greek form was aimed at: e.g. oirhnh, irhnh, eirhnh; culukia, culhkia,

etc. In literary texts, then, the form of the Greek loanwords in Coptic63 is understandable

from the phonology of the Greek spoken in Egypt and it is also useful to know the

original spelling of the words. The Greek spoken in Egypt – as a regional variety – has

some features not present in the Greek elsewhere, which might partly be the “internal

development of Egyptian Greek itself“64 and partly show traces of the influence of

Egyptian.65

Naturally, not only phonetic-phonological issues present themselves in Greek loanwords,

but also semantic – what semantic field they have as opposed to their use in Greek;

stylistic – for what style and language register each was employed, as opposed to possible

Coptic counterparts,66 etc.; and syntactic – how are they built into the Coptic sentence,

59 WEIß, 1966: 185.60 e.g. GIGNAC, 1976-81.61 In Syriac, on the other hand, as Sebastian BROCK points out, 1999: 256: “most Greek words were takenover in their written form, rather than as pronounced: this is indicated by the retention of upsilonrepresented by waw. (…) only a few Greek borrowings in Syriac feature in a form that must represent

spoken usage“; the impact of iotacism, however, is visible: “dhna/rion -dinara (emphatic ending);

ki/ndunoj -qindunos/qundinos (!); klh=roj –qliros; e)/kleiyij –eqlipsis“ ; further, similarly to Coptic, the

spiritus asper is frequently assumed in the place of the spiritus lenis: “a)/rwma –haroma“ (p. 256). In

Coptic e.g. e)lpi/j and e)/qnoj are most often written xelpis and xecnos respectively, among manyothers.62 WEIß, 1966: 185.63 The reverse phenomenon can also be encountered, a case where a Coptic word occurs in a Greek literarytext is discussed by JERNSTEDT, 1929: 122-124; but in this case the word is indeed difficult to recognize

(skatzu/ for pkouji) as the XIVth century manuscript probably underwent several scribal errors since thecomposition in the VIIth century, and the word was no longer understood.

Again, copticism might be suspected behind a o( Xristo/j in a Greek papyrus, as in Greek required nodefinite article, being treated as a proper noun as opposed to Coptic where it is always peYS; as also in the

name Semprwni/a Tasabei/na on another, where most probably the Coptic possessive prefix ta can beseen, SIJPESTEIJN, 1978:172-3.64 HORROCKS, 1997: 63.65 For possible phonological features, see HORROCKS, 1997: 62. For Egyptian Greek, see THEODORSSON,1977 and the earlier mentioned GIGNAC, 1976-1981.66 Greek words probably had a higher prestige, cf. ORÉAL, 1999: 293.

11

e.g. which form the Greek verbs display,67 etc.; for all these we have but individual

studies68 about individual texts, but again no comprehensive work. There is hope,

however, as a large-scale lexicographical project devoted to the compilation of a Database

and Dictionary of Greek Loanwords in Coptic (DDGLC) came into existence, and there

will be a conference in Leipzig, 26-28 April 2010 – a joint project, organized by Eitan

Grossman and Dr. Sebastian Richter on behalf of the Linguistic Department of

the Hebrew University and the Egyptological Institute of the University of Leipzig and

supported by the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and the Saxonian

Academy of Sciences – ”intended to create a discussion between linguists, Copticists and

classicists, in order to raise important theoretical issues, as well as to prepare and support

the practical work of compiling DDGLC.”69

0.2 Translations from Greek

Translation is quite a complex activity as a good knowledge of both source language and

target language should be present, the meaning of the source text must be conveyed

accurately and the target text must be clear and understandable for the speakers of the

target language, even without any knowledge of the source language. This is not such an

easy task, especially when dealing with two so different languages as Greek and Coptic,

which naturally have mainly totally different means of expression and ways of building

up sentences and relationships between them. Just for the sake of example, Coptic is

clearly a language with a tendence for asyndeton, therefore sentences like the following:

loipon aplusths taueoušaje xipestauros apjoeis kanefnobe naf ebol

afjitF epparadisos

(Spiteful 6, 21-23) obviously need some kind of ’linking’ when translated to most other

languages. Greek evidently has its own characteristics encountered by the Coptic

translators when they so intensely and enthusiastically started translating the Gospels for

their fellow Egyptians. Translating words and sentences from Greek into Coptic is not the

sole issue, the background of translating is more complex.

67 LEFORT, 1950; STEINDROFF, 1951; BÖHLIG, 1953.68 HOPFNER, 1918; GASELEE, 1929-30; LEFORT, 1950; GIRGIS, 1963-64; DRESCHER, 1969; DRESCHER, 1970;YOUNG, 1969; FUNK, 1984; GRODDEK ET AL., 2006; RICHTER, 2008b.69 Quoted from the invitation letter sent to me by the organizers.

12

Translation techniques in antiquity were studied by Sebastian Brock70 and he relies on

Cicero and Horace when introducing the dichotomy of techniques. Both authors express

the view that the translator of literary texts applies the method of sensus de sensu, which

is clearly the superior one to the slave-like verbum e verbo technique employed by the

translators of legal and business documents.71 When Christianity and its missionary

activity arrives, however, this ”neat dichotomy between literary and non-literary

translation (…) breaks down”72 because the literary writings to be translated in this case,

are sacred, ”ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est” – as Jerome wrote in his letter to

Pammachius;73 word order is thus also to be followed if possible, and the endeavour to do

so is visible in the Coptic translations as well, one very obvious sign of that being the

extensive use of the Nqi–construction.74 So it is very important to bear in mind with the

Coptic NT translations that the Greek ”text is an authoritative source, given, ever-present,

decoded (but also interpreted and often imitated) by the author of the target text; the other

text is created on the basis of the source text”.75 Peter Nagel points out that as opposed to

the NT translations: ”Die koptischen Übersetzer gingen zuweilen recht frei mit ihrer

Vorlage um, wenn es kein kanonischer Text war.”76 That kind of literal or pattern-to-

pattern nature is really the ’specialty’ of the Bible translations, and it is no Coptic

invention, it appeared already in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint),

whose language thus abounds in hebraisms.77 There is, however, also no comprehensive

study on the Coptic translations from that aspect – how do they start (literal/sense-to-

sense) and what direction do they take? Is there a clearly seizable trend? Manal Yousri

Gabr’s study examines the Gospel of John only and confines itself to the study of the

positions of the subject, i.e. word-order issues, but he concludes that the earlier versions

were characterized by the sense-to-sense translation technique, which later moved

towards the word-to-word method.78 This would not be surprising as studies on the Old

Testament translations show the same phenomenon: ”Diese Studien zeigen, daß frühe,

freier gehaltene und sinngemäßere Übersetzungen im Laufe der Zeit als unzureichend

70 BROCK, 1979.71 BROCK, 1979: 69-70.72 BROCK, 1979: 70.73 cited from BROCK, 1979: 69.74 MORENZ, 1952; SCHÜSSLER, 2008.75 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1990: 100/fn.4.76 NAGEL, 1998: 41.77 BROCK, 1979: 70-72; FÖLDVÁRY, 2008.78 GABR, 1990: ii; 116-122.

13

empfunden worden waren und daher überarbeitet oder vollständig ersetzt worden sind.”79

The reason for this turn towards literal translations might be the canonization process, the

gradual growth of the prestige of the texts, leading to the conclusion that a precise and

exact translation of the original is ’a must’. That seems to be parallelled in Coptic by the

treatment of Greek words, connected to Christianity, as it seems that the first Coptic

translators tried hard to translate everything – except for the words that had no Egyptian

equivalent – and later they chose to ’loan’ Greek words,80 this way they could be certain

that no mistranslation is made. The motivation for a close imitation of the Greek and a

shift towards hellenization is shown in Brock’s study on Syriac, and not only in

translations: ”During the fifth, and above all in the sixth and seventh centuries, the ever

increasing prestige of all things Greek in the eyes of most Syriac writers brought about a

dramatic change that affected almost all areas of Syriac writing; the impress of Greek can

thus be seen in genre and syntax, as well as in vocabulary where there is a vast increase

during this period in the number of Greek and Latin words which enter Syriac and very

often gain wide currency.”81 This observation supports Weiß’ opinion that in Syriac these

Greek words were rather Fremdwörter, not used for centuries before getting into the

translations,82 which is shown also by the fact that they were taken over in their written

rather than spoken forms (see previous section). The Greek words in Coptic, on the other

hand, are really loanwords, most of them used for centuries in Egypt before the translation

activity, they are of all kinds (verbs and particles also in great numbers as opposed to

Syriac), from the most various fields of life, and were used in the way they were

pronounced (i.e. spoken) in the Egyptian Greek of the time.83 It is further supported by the

fact that on several occasions the Coptic translations have a Greek word different from the

one found in the Greek original text,84 because clearly the translator employs the

loanword known and used already in the Egyptian idiom for the given meaning.85

79 FEDER, 2006: 302, referring to – among others – to the studies of Sebastian Brock on the Syriactranslations; he also emphasizes that no similar studies on the Coptic translations have been made.80 GASELEE, 1929-30: 225.81 BROCK, 1999: 253.82 WEIß, 1966: 194.83 WEIß, 1966: 204-205.84 HOPFNER, 1918: 12-13.85 WEIß, 1966: 208; FEDER, 2002: 84. Let me bring some examples from the Greek and Coptic Vitae

Antonii: for ’strife’ the Greek text (BARTELINK, 1994) has a(/milla (837A 1) and the Coptic (GARITTE,

1949) translates it with the Greek loanword agwn (1, 6); the word ’church-building’ is used as kuriako/nin the Greek version (841A 11; 841B 6; 844A 20), the Coptic translates with ekklhsia (3, 11-12; 3, 26; 4,

15). In the present corpus, an example can be Mt 8, 18 in dialect M where Greek keleu/w is translatedwith epitasse.

14

1. Clauses with i(/na and Clauses with jekas and the Infinitive Constructions

When examining the clause-system of Coptic, one must remember that regarding clauses

and/or verb forms, the Egyptian language cannot quite be looked at as one uniform entity.

Naturally, the several-thousand-year old idiom displays a number of changes, involving

syntax, and it underwent a „Systemumbau”86 altogether. The direction of language

development is towards an analytic, in place of a synthetic system87 and conversion.88 In

pre-Coptic Egyptian the language possessed certain verb forms which could stand in the

place where in another language a clause would be found; very good examples are the

relative forms for the function of a relative (or adjective) clause, for the clause of

circumstance (or adverb clause) there are the circumstancial verb forms, and for the that-

clause (or noun clause) there are the emphatic forms or „ancestors of the Coptic second

tenses”.89 In these cases the non-presence of a clause with a conjunction is natural. By the

Coptic phase of the language the above mentioned verb forms cease to exist as a result of

the analytic tendence of the language, and become replaced by converters; other clause

types also become more frequent, partly also in place of verb-forms. That can be seen as a

simplification of verbal morphology, which it really is, but at the same time a

complication of other parts of the language, in this case clause syntax, inevitably occurs.90

Let us now turn our attention to the final clause patterns.91

In classical Attic the conjunction i(/na was used to introduce final clauses (i.e. adverbial

clauses). The Hellenistic period, however, saw an interesting change in the use of i(/na–

clauses: in the frequency of their application and in the syntactic positions they could

occupy; they began to be used very often at the expense of infinitival constructions and to

appear in places atypical in classical Attic92 – as object of certain verbs, in subject

86 NAGEL, 1971: 328.87 HINTZE, 1947; SCHENKEL 1966; POLOTSKY 1987a: 16; LOPRIENO, 1995: 7.88 HINTZE, 1947.89 POLOTSKY 1987a: 18; cf. also LOPRIENO, 1995: 73.90 As THOMASON-KAUFMAN, 1988: 23 put it – ”a language is not just one system, but a system of systems.All its systems interact, and (…) a change that simplifies one subsystem is likely to complicate another.”91 For the list of texts studied, see the beginning of the dissertation: LIST OF TEXTS AND EDITIONS

EXAMINED; in the case of the NT, Matthew will be examined in dialects S and M, John in dialects S and L,Romans in dialect S basically as the M text in this case is very fragmentary (ORLANDI, – QUECKE, 1974).92 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §369; HORROCKS, 1997: 75.

15

position, etc. It is certainly not our aim to investigate the reasons for that,93 but we will

collect the syntactic positions this clause type and its ‘rivals’ (i.e. more often than not the

infinitive) tend to fill, and examine the Coptic translation varieties, and then the same

syntactic positions in original Coptic writings, which may show in what ways and to what

extent Coptic syntax was influenced by Greek (patterns) and whether this influence can

be observed mainly in translations, i.e. it is translation induced, or in original and

translation to the same extent.

The examination will focus on patterns, or surface structures/external forms, as they are

part of the language and very good indicators of language contact and language change,

influencing may be very strong and intense even if ‘only’ the surface structures are

affected.

1.1 Final Clause/Clause of Purpose

To determine the possible Greek influence on Coptic clause patterning in the case of the

final, the means and ways of expression, the clause patterns in Greek and Coptic will be

examined first. After that, the translated and original text base will be compared, patterns

identified, differences between translated and original clauses recognized, conclusions

drawn.

In the classical language of Greek, final meaning was expressed either by a final clause,

with the pattern conjunction i(/na, w(j, o(/pwj, (in negation i(/na mh/, w(j mh/, o(/pwj mh/,

mh/) plus subjunctive if the main verb is present, or optativus (obliquus) after a preterit

main verb (sometimes even then the subjunctive was used);94 or by a future participle (or

less frequently the participium imperfectum), sometimes together with w(j;95 or by an

infinitive,96 especially after verbs like di/dwmi, e)pitre/pw, ai(re/omai, pe/mpw,

a)fikne/omai.

93 See for example HORROCKS, 1997: 75: „The extension of finite (subjunctive) clauses introduced by final

conjunctions, especially i(/na, at the expense of infinitival structures: this was possibly connected with thehistorically wider range of uses of Latin ut, e.g. in final and consecutive clauses, indirect commands, andvarious `future-referring` complement and adjunct structures. Since this process began in the Hellenisticperiod, however, the most we can say is that contact with Latin may have reinforced and/or accelerated thetrend.“94 BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §276.95 BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §246,g96 BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §237,2

16

From the Hellenistic period, and in the language of the New Testament, the infinitive of

purpose after verbs of motion became more frequent than in classical Greek (in earlier

times, in Homer, it was used much more than with Attic writers who only use it after

certain verbs see above); analytical constructions with i(/na became serious rivals of the

infinitive at the same time – the choice between the two seems to be a matter of

preference;97 it will be examined below how often and where one or the other is used in

the NT books Matthew, John and Romans. At this time the optative is not used after i(/na

even after a preterit verb form.98 The future participle is rather infrequent in the language

of the NT, and sometimes the imperfect participle stands in its place.99

In Coptic the most typical final patterns are100 the clauses introduced by jekas or je

followed by future 3 or 2, and the e plus infinitive construction; in the negative the

negative future 3 after jekas or je can be used, a mhpote or mhpws with the

conjunctive (this clause type having some additional semantic nuance), and the negated e

plus infinitive construction. Far less frequent – especially in S – is the pattern jekas plus

conjunctive; non-existent in literary S, but present in B is the pattern xina with the

conjunctive, and in the here examined dialect M the pattern xinas with future 3. The

future conjunctive and its alleged final use101 will be examined in the chapter, see later

1.1.1.2.1, the conjunctive will also be briefly discussed here, 1.1.1.2.2;102 further, the final

use of the circumstantial present103 will be seen, 1.1.1.3.

The tables below show the final patterns and the number of their occurrences in the texts

analysed. In the case of the translations of Matthew and John,104 the Middle-Egyptian and

the Lycopolitan dialects respectively are also taken into consideration, but only as

reference, as Sahidic is the basis for the present study. The reason for that is the neutral

97 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §388 and 390.98 MOULTON ET AL., 1963: 26.99 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §418 – in fact for the future participle the only example seems to be Mt 27,49.100 TILL, 1961: §423; LAYTON, 2004: §502101 Cf. Till, 1961: §311: from certain uses of the future conjunctive ”sich der Sinn eines Finalsatzesentwickelt”.102 TILL, 1961: §423, 323.103 TILL, 1961: §§423, 328, 329.104 On the S translations of John, and its ’peculiarities’, see SCHÜSSLER, 2008.

17

nature105 and standard literary idiom character of the latter, and the fact that the authors

examined here who basically created original Coptic literature106 and from whom there

are Coptic original texts surviving, Pachom and Shenoute also wrote in this dialect.

105 ”it is ’neutral’ or, better, most leveled, dialectologically speaking; it is the dialect most diffcult tocharacterize distinctively, a ’mean’ dialect, the one with the fewest exclusive traits and the most isoglossesshared with others” SHISHA-HALEVY, 1991: 195.106 On the problem of whom to call the first original Coptic author, see NAGEL, 1971: 348; also RUBENSON,1992.

18

GREEK (Total 234) fig.1

Matthew John Romans

i(/na subj 19 98 23

o(/pwj subj 12 1 3

mh/pote subj 8* - -

infinitive 24 6 3

prep and/or article + inf 13 - 13

part impf 4 5 1

part fut 1 - -

Total 81 110 43

*in Mt 7,6 most Greek variants have a future indicative after the conjunction, but in the Codex

Sinaiticus there is subjunctive107

S COPTIC (Total 234) fig.2

Matthew John Romans

jekas fut3 33 80 15

jekas fut2 - 5** 1

je fut3 - 9 10

je fut2 - 1** -

jekas conj - - 1

mhpoteconj 8 - -

circ pres 4 5 1

e+inf 34* 10 14

e+art+inf 2 - 1

Total 81 110 43

*in Mt 14,23 the variant in Perez (manuscript M 569) is not an e+infinitive, but a perfect 1

**all of them are only text variants beside future 3, see later in the section

107 New Testament Transcripts: http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de; the future indicative is used in Koine

Greek in places where it had not appeared in classical Greek, for example after i(/na and final mh/, BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §369.

19

M COPTIC MATTHEW (Total 81) fig.3

jekes fut3 17

je fut3 11

xinas fut3 3

mhpote conj 3

mhpws conj 5

¥ante 2

circ pres 5

pf 1 2

fut conj 1

e+inf 25

e+article+inf 4

prep+noun 1

conj 2

Total 81

L COPTIC JOHN (Total 93) fig.4

jekase fut3 49

jekase fut2 16

je fut3 4

je fut2 6

jekase conj 1

fut conj 2

a+inf 12

circ pres 3

Total 93*

* clauses are missing because the MS is not complete

20

ORIGINAL COPTIC LITERATURE (Total 240) fig.5

Pachom Theodore Horsiese Shenoute

je fut3 16 5 12 19

je fut2 4 1 2 1

jekas fut3 - 1 20 12

jekas fut2 4 1 5 9

jekas conj - 1 - -

mhpote conj 5 3 1 -

e inf 8 19 37 54

Total 37 31 77 95

1.1.1 Clause Patterns

Under this heading all patterns will be discussed that express purpose, are not infinitive

constructions, and are not independent (see below, perfect 1 as translation of a final

infinitive?). The Greek participles of purpose will, by necessity, partly be discussed here,

as they are translated by the Coptic circumstantial clause in most of the cases.

1.1.1.1 Clause-with-conjunction patterns: this subclass contains those clauses which

follow the pattern: conjunction + verb form = subordinate clause, as opposed to the so-

called ’clause-conjugations’ and the converted clauses (circumstantial).

In the Sahidic Matthew, John and Romans the most frequently used final clause pattern is

the jekas plus future 3 with 79.14% (129 out of a total of 163 clauses). The second place

is taken by the je plus future 3 clause pattern which is 11.65% of the clauses (19 out of

163); the third is the mhpote plus conjunctive pattern, but it has a limited range as it can

be used only in negatives, of course – it is 4.90% (8 out of 163); the jekas plus fut 2

pattern is 3.68% (6 out of 163), and je with future 2 is 0.61% (1 out of 163), the same

number as the jekas plus conjunctive pattern.

In the original text material, the clause-with-conjunction patterns are as follows: the most

frequently used pattern is je plus future 3 with 42.62% (52 out of 122 clauses); the

second place is taken by jekas plus future 3 with 27.04% (33 out of 122); the third is

jekas plus future 2 with 15.57% (19 out of 122); the next most frequent is mhpote plus

21

conjunctive with 7.37 %, but we know that it is only used in negatives; je plus future 2 is

6.55% of all clauses (8 out of 122); jekas plus conjunctive is 0.82% (1 out of 122).

1.1.1.1.1 jekas and je with future 3 or 2: The most frequent and most evident final

clauses are jekas and je with the future 3 or 2. This overwhelming majority and

dominance of the jekas plus future 3 pattern (79.14%, see above) in the Sahidic New

Testament is shown also in Lefort’s 1948 study, where he examined all the NT books in

the S version.108 In his article Lefort eventually concludes that there is basically no future

2 in the S NT used with jekas or je – the cases attested are indeed mere text variants,

and rather few in number.109 In the text material of the present study, they are as follows

in the S version:

Jn 5, 34: in Horner jekas fut2, in Quecke jekas fut3.

Jn 6, 5: in Horner je fut2, in Quecke je fut3.

Jn 15, 16 in Horner jekas fut2, in Quecke jekas fut3.

Jn 16, 33: in Horner jekas fut2, in Quecke jekas fut3.

Jn 19, 4: in Horner jekas fut2, in Quecke jekas fut3.

Jn 20, 31 (the second final of the two): in Horner jekas fut2, no text critical remarks; in

Quecke jekas fut3.

Rm 3, 19: in Horner there is no variant.

In meaning, there is no difference between the two conjunctions, the same recurring

passages are translated with jekas in some places and then with je in others,110 or

between the patterns; however, Shisha-Halevy suspects that there is more to their

distribution than mere choice: ”jekaas vs. je--efeswtm and je vs. jekaas

efnaswtm – an opposition the functional resolution of which must await some future

study.”111

108 LEFORT, 1948: 66.109 LEFORT, 1948: 68-69, speaking of the whole NT: „sur quelque 650 propositions finales introduites parjekas ou je, on constate que 10 fois une partie de la tradition manuscrite a utilisé la forme etetna quiest celle du futur II, à moins que ce ne soit une forme akhmimisante du futur III; de même certains mss ont,une seule fois, ajouté un na au verbe assez éloigné de son auxiliaire ere, lequel sert à la fois au futur II etau futur III.”110 LEFORT, 1948: 67.111 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: 197.

22

In the Middle-Egyptian dialect version of Matthew, no future 2 occurs in these clauses. In

the text of the Lycopolitan John, however, fut 2 is much more frequently used with

jekas and on some occasions also with je than in S112 (see fig.4).

In the original Coptic material it is rather conspicuous that je occurs far more frequently

here than in the NT, and future 2 is also used more than in the NT.113

Pachom, Spiteful 5, 24Ntausexnei¥aje de nan jekas ennapisteue epnoute

Shenoute, Young 21 129, 12-13efouw¥ Ntof etrenRxenkouei jeefe+ nan Nxennoq emate Mmn¥i eroou…

In the original material, then, a far less ’biased’ distribution of the clause patterns evolves,

the rate of jekas/je with future 3/future 2 is more balanced, with je+future 3

dominating only with 42.62% as opposed to the 79.14% of jekas+future 3 in the

translations. That shows that the jekas+future 3 pattern became the pattern-to-pattern

translation114 of the i(/na (o(/pwj) plus subjunctive clause type, thus its dominance can be

explained by Greek influence, the impact of its very close translation to be more precise.

1.1.1.1.2 jekas plus conjunctive: In the S NT texts examined here, there is but one

example of the jekas plus conjunctive pattern:

Rm 6, 4

Greek: i(/na w(/sper h)ge/rqh XristoÜj e)k nekrw=n diaÜ th=j do/chj tou= patro/j,

ou(/twj kaiÜ h(mei=j e)n kaino/thti zwh=j peripath/swmen

S Coptic: automsN … jekas kata ce NtapeyStwoun ebol xNnetmooutxitMpeoou Mpeiwt NtNmoo¥e xwwn Nteixe

In the sentence there is an interposition between conjunction and verb, and that seems to

be the difference to the other jekas–clauses. In the examined original texts there is also

one example of that pattern, also with an interposition, in Theodore’s Instruction:

41, 20-22jekas er¥anpkairos ¥wpe Ntepnoute qMpen¥ine Nsexe eron ensBtwt

xwste etrenjoos je …

With the other authors, Pachom, Horsiese, and Shenoute, the pattern does not occur in the

examined texts, in connection with Shenoute Shisha-Halevy notes that ”the construction

112 see also Thompson’s remark on that, THOMPSON, 1924: XVIII/fn. 1.113 cf. Shisha-Halevy’s note on that, SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: 197/fn. 51.

23

is uncommon”115 in his works. In the Sahidic NT, however, it can be found on several

occasions beside Rm 6,4, all the others appear in the NT books outside of the scope of the

present work.116 According to Lefort, they have one feature in common, namely the

interposed adverbial (”temporelle, conditionelle, et surtout participiale, etc.”117) clause.118

In Rm 5, 21, however, there is an interposition also, and the clause still contains the future

3 rather than the conjunctive, therefore Lefort concludes that „la proposition intercalaire

n’est pas la cause, mais tout au plus une condition de l’emploi du conjonctif après

jekas.”119

In the Lycopolitan John version, on the other hand, the conjunctive appears with jekase

again after an interposition, which is not adverbial, but the emphasized object:

Jn 11,52

Greek: ou)x u(peÜr tou= e)/qnouj mo/non a)ll” i(/na kaiÜ taÜ te/kna tou= qeou= taÜ

dieskorpisme/na sunaga/gh? ei)j e(/n

L Coptic: xavecnos ou monon alla jekase an N¥hre Ntepnoute etjar abalNfsauxou auma Nouwt

S Coptic: xapxecnos an Mmate alla jekas on N¥hre Mpnoute etjoore ebolefesoouxou euma Nouwt

This leads us to the next question: what is the syntactic role and/or explanation for the

conjunctive after jekas? Lefort, when discussing the phenomenon, states that the

conjunctive is clearly not governed by jekas, rather an anacoluthon is at play in these

sentences,120 that is, the final clause starts with the conjunction, then an interposition

follows and only after that scission is the final clause completed with the verb, which may

optionally be the conjunctive; but this interposition – as we have seen above – is just one

condition and ”not the conditioning factor for the conjunctive”121 and Lefort goes on to

conclude that the conjunctive here has „a special modal value”,122 the volitive and is in

parataxis.123 ”To what is the conjunctive coordinated”124 then, asks Shisha-Halevy rightly;

114 They could also be called ”grammatical calques”, see SHISHA-HALEVY, 1990: 100; BYNON, 1997:222.115 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: 207.116 They are as follows (see LEFORT, 1948: 69): Mc 10,35; 14,35; Lc 14,10; 1Cor 7,29; 9,18; 16,2; 2Cor8,6; 9,3; 9,8; Php 1,27; 2,28; 2Th 3,12; Tit 2,12; 3,7; Heb 9,15; 10,36; 1Pe 2,12; 2,24; 3,1; 2Jh 6117 LEFORT, 1948: 70.118 see also LAYTON, 2004: §355.119 LEFORT, 1948: 70; also Layton, 2004, §355: „In a clause of purpose jeka(a)s optionally is expanded bythe conjunctive if an adverbial clause stands between jeka(a)s and the conjunctive.”120 LEFORT, 1948: 70.121 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.6.1.122 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.6.1.123 LEFORT, 1948: 72.124 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.6.1.

24

in Lefort’s view it seems to be in parataxis with the verb of the interposed clause:

”l’action du verbe au conjonctif y est intimement liée à la réalisation de l’action, ou de

l’état indiqués dans la phrase intercalaire ; si bien que, dans l’esprit du sujet parlant, les

deux actions s’enchaînent naturellement.”125 Shisha-Halevy’s solution seems plausible,

the interposition is adverbial, ”really protatic” and the conjunctive after that has an

”apodotic-resuming role”.126

But how are we to interpret the cases where not an adverbial (or protatic?) clause is

interposed, but the object, as in L Jn 11, 52? Here, it cannot be in special linkage with the

action in the clause as there is none.

Elsewhere in Coptic, the conjunctive follows not only jekas but xina too, also in final

clauses. In B xina + conjunctive as final clause pattern is general, whereas, in S literary

idiom it does not occur,127 neither with conjunctive nor with future 2 or 3. In B xina

introduces final clauses (then followed by the conjunctive), and also in some gnostic texts

the conjunction occurs, there not only with the conjunctive, but also with future 2 and

followed by je+ fut 2.128 In the text material examined here, there is no xina+

conjunctive in S, as can be expected; in M there is xinas + future 3 in final clauses, and

xinas + conjunctive stands exclusively in i(/na–clauses other than final

(complementary/epexegetic clauses, object clauses after verbs of exhorting), see later, in

1.2.1.1 and 1.4.1.2.

1.1.1.1.3 mhpote (and mhpws) is a loan-conjunction always followed by the

conjunctive. It is used in this translated material only when the Greek original has the

pattern mh/pote plus subjunctive, this happens in Matthew alone; it certainly has an

additional nuance in meaning – ’so that it never/no way happens’– to the other negative

finals. Where the negation of the final clause in the Greek takes the form of i(/na or o(/pwj

mh/, then one of the jekas or je plus negative fut 3 patterns is used: in Matthew there are

4 i(/na mh/ patterns, all of them translated with jekas plus neg fut 3 (7,1; 17,27; 26,5;

26,41); and there is 1 o(/pwj mh/ pattern, also translated with jekas plus neg fut 3 (6,18).

125 LEFORT, 1948: 72.126 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.6.1.127 NAGEL, 1971: 350.128 NAGEL, 1971: 349-350, see examples there.

25

In John no mh/pote patterns occur; there are altogether 14 i(/na mh/ patterns, 11 times

translated with jekas plus neg fut 3 (3,16; 3,20; 4,15; 5,14; 6,12; 12,40; 12,42; 12,46;

16,1; 18,28; 18,36;), and 2 times translated with je plus neg fut 3 (7,23; 12,35; 19,31);

there is no o(/pwj mh/ here. In Romans there are no such negations.

In the Middle-Egyptian Matthew the Greek mh/pote plus subjunctive patterns are

translated with mhpote plus conjunctive on 3 occasions (4,6; 5,25; 13,29), and with

mhpws plus conjunctive on 5 occasions (7,6; 13,15; 15,32; 25,9; 27,64). The four i(/na mh/

patterns are translated with je plus negative future 3 on three occasions (7,1; 26,5;

26,41), and with jekes plus negative future 3 on one occasion (17,27); the one o(/pwj mh/

pattern is translated with jekes plus negative future 3 (6,18).

In the original text material mhpote plus conjunctive occurs altogether 9 times: 5 times

in Pachom (Spiteful 3,23; 4,6; 11,22; 13,2; 22,14), 3 times in Theodore (Instr 3 46,4;

58,21; 59,13), and once in Horsiese (Letters 63,27), and not once in Shenoute. In the rest

of the negative finals jekas or je plus negative future 3 is used.

For the conjunctive after Greek conjunctions see later, 2.3.1.

1.1.1.1.4 The xinas plus future 3 pattern occurs in the present text corpus only in the M

Matthew:

Mt 14, 15

Greek: a)po/luson touÜj o)/xlouj i(/na a)pelqo/ntej (…) a)gora/swsin e(autoi=j

brw/mata

M: apolu Mpmh¥e xinas eoue¥e neu (…) nse¥ep trovh neu

S: ka mmhh¥e ebol jekas euebwk (…) nse¥wp nau mpetounaouomf

Mt 27, 26

Greek: toÜn deÜ I)hsou=n fragellw/saj pare/dwken i(/na staurwqh=?

M: IHS de xauvragellou mmaf xauparadidou mmaf neu xinas eoues!&OU mmaf

S: IS de afvragellou mmof afparadidou mmof jekas eues!&OU mmof

Mt 28, 8

Greek: e)/dramon a)paggei=lai toi=j maqhtai=j au)tou=

M: xau¥e neu (…) xinas eouetame nefmachths

S: aupwt (…) ejipouw nnefmachths

26

This pattern is, naturally the exact equivalent in syntactic position and meaning of the

jekas or je plus future 3 (or 2) pattern, the only difference being the conjunction,

which in this case is the slightly altered form of Greek i(/na as loanword, which does not

occur in S literary idiom – see above, 1.1.1.1.2.

1.1.1.2 Clause Conjugations

1.1.1.2.1 The future conjunctive is mentioned as having final meaning (see 1.1 earlier),

but it is not found in the S Matthew, John or Romans translation as final,129 nor in the

original writings. It is, however, used twice in L and once in M translating a Greek final

clause:

Mt 23, 26

Greek: Farisai=e tufle/, kaqa/rison prw=ton toÜ e)ntoÜj tou= pothri/ou, i(/na

ge/nhtai kaiÜ toÜ e)ktoÜj au)tou= kaqaro/n.

S: pevarissaios pbLle tBbo N¥orp Mpsanxoun Mpapot mN ppina3 jekaserepeukesambol ¥wpe eftBbhu

M: pvarisaios pbl’’lh matoube xixoun n¥arp mpapat mn ppina3

Ntarepkexibal ¥ope eftoubhout’

Jn 3, 17

Greek: ou) gaÜr a)pe/steilen o( qeoÜj toÜn ui(oÜn ei)j toÜn ko/smon i(/na kri/nh? toÜn

ko/smon

S: Ntapnoute gar tNneu p¥hre an epkosmos je efekrine Mpkosmos

L: Ntapnoute gar tNnau Mpef¥hre en apkosmos tafaRkrine

Jn 9, 36

Greek: kaiÜ ti/j e)stin, ku/rie, i(/na pisteu/sw ei)j au)to/n;

S: pjoeis nimpe je eeiepisteue erof

L: pjaeis nimpe taeiaRpisteue araf

In Jn 3, 17 it is further interesting that in the second part of the sentence, which is the very

same final, also L uses a final clause pattern, jekase plus future 2.

129 cf. POLOTSKY, 1950: 87: ”L’emploi de tare - est limité, dans la Bible sahidique, à deux types de

phrase. Dans l’un, il traduit le futur grec coordonné par kai/ à un impératif (type „Cherchez et voustrouverez”) ou, plues rarement, à une question rhétorique. Dans l’autre, limité à la 1re pers. pl., il traduit engénéral l’aoriste du subjonctif en tête de phrase.”

27

When arguing for the final use of the future conjunctive, Till130 has as a sole example

Liber Ecclesiasticus 31, 9 which, however, is not a sentence where one has to or should

take the future conjunctive as having final meaning131 in ”the sense of deliberate

purpose”132 or as standing in the place of a final clause:

nimpe tarNmakarize Mmof ’Who is he? That we may call him blessed.’ (temporary

translation)

Here, the future conjunctive is the classical ”post-imperatival apodotic form with a

promissive overtone”,133 with the only seemingly problematic difference that it follows a

question, not an imperative. Shisha-Halevy,134 analysing Shenoute’s idiom, says that „the

distribution of taref- has been extended to post-interrogative” environments, which, as

we can see, occurs in the Biblical idiom as well.135 Also Layton speaks about its use „in

sequel to a question”, he however adds that when the future conjunctive appears in such

environments, it ”implies an unspoken imperative commanding the interlocutor to answer

the question”.136 Thus, the passage from Liber Ecclesiasticus, which is the very example

in Layton as well, will be interpreted as follows:

’Who is he? – (Tell me,) and we will call him blessed.’

This evaluation seems well-grounded when one sees the Greek original that the Coptic

translator had before him:

Ti/j e)stin; kaiÜ makariou=men au)to/n

Therefore, there is no need to look for uses or meanings of this and similar cases of future

conjunctive other than the original one, which is not a rival to the final clause, however, a

slight final overtone should not be denied, a ”final desirable result rather than downright

deliberate purpose”.137 And this very use must evidently be seen in Jn 9, 36 which is

130 TILL, 1961: §311131 About the uses and meanings of the future conjunctive in the Sahidic Bible, and about the Greek formsit translates see POLOTSKY, 1944: 107 where he says: ”Si la valeur primitive de tare– est nettementdistincte du sens final, elle en est cependant voisine.”132 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.1.1.5.1133 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.1.1.5.1; LEFORT speaks of a modal role of the future conjunctive, ”modesubjectif”, and in his opinion it corresponds and was somehow ’developed’ to translate the Greek potentialoptative, LEFORT, 1947: 10-11; this idea is rejected by POLOTSKY, 1950: esp. 90; cf. also FEDER, 2006:301.134 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.1.1.5.1135 POLOTSKY, 1944: 110 had also recognized this use of the future conjunctive.136 LAYTON, 2004: §358,b137 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.1.1.5.1

28

basically a paraphrase of the OT sentence, with the difference that the Greek has kaiÜ plus

futurum in the OT passage and a i(/na–clause in the NT.

That leaves us with two examples of the (seemingly) final future conjunctive, one in M

and one in L. In the case of Mt 23, 26 the future conjunctive follows an imperative, where

its traditional place is, and so that can also be understood as a classical post-imperatival

future conjunctive: ”make the inside of your cup clean, and then the outside will also be

clean”. So in Mt 23, 26 and Jn 9, 36 the future conjunctive is used in the classical way in

M and L respectively, while S employs the jekas or je final clause pattern. The reason

for that is evidently the Greek original, where a i(/na–clause is used in each case; that

means that the translation technique of the translators S, M and L differs here. The

translator of S aims at a literal translation and at following the original as closely as

possible, and again translates the pattern. The Matthew and John places evidently allow

such interpretations as present in M – a slightly promissive, relative future time action

with ”final desirable result”138 after an imperative – and in L – the seemingly post-

interrogative in fact post-imperatival promissive action – , because i(/na–clauses had quite

a wide spectrum in Koine Greek (see above 1.1). The strict final value of the i(/na–clause

used in Jn 9, 36 is further questioned by the Liber Ecclesiasticus passage where kaiÜ plus

futurum is used in its place in the very same context. The M and L translators interpreted

the passages and made them ”more Coptic” using the traditional (late!) Egyptian139 form

for the meaning implied or felt.

That difference in translation technique might in turn be explained by the date of the

texts: with Matthew we have a S manuscript dated to the second half of the 8th century,140

and a M manuscript from the 4-5th century;141 with John we have a S manuscript from the

5th century,142 and a L manuscript from the 4th century.143 Thus, one might assume an

earlier text version for the two smaller dialects, which flourished in the 4-5th centuries,144

and maybe a later text version for the S texts present. Now, it seems that the Coptic NT

translations went from sensus de sensu, which allowed more room for interpretation, to

138 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.1.1.5.1139 see JUNGE, 1996: 237, dj=j jr=f sdm > tarefswtM; and also LOPRIENO, 1995: 230.140 PEREZ, 1984: 28.141 SCHENKE, 1991: 162.142 GABR, 1990: 11.143 THOMPSON, 1924: xiii.144 NAGEL, 1991: 153; SCHENKE, 1991: 162.

29

verbum e verbo,145 which would explain why the later translators insisted on the final

clause pattern in these passages – it is a word to word, or better, pattern-to-pattern

translation.

The L version of Jn 3, 17 is rather peculiar as the future conjunctive is not in post-

imperatival position here, in fact it is in a narrative, following a past tense verb – Lefort

himself admits about it: ”Plus curieux encore est le cas de Jean en dialecte A2 (…) que

l’éditeur estime, avec raison, être une transposition du sahidique”.146 According to

Layton, the future conjunctive ”very rarely” occurs in narratives expressing purpose,147 so

this passage in L (not in S!) might be one of the very few cases. And this is the only case

in the examined text corpus where the future conjunctive ”is opposed to other final

constructions”.148

In the original material no ’final’ future conjunctives were found. In Shenoute’s writings,

even the classical usage of the future conjunctive is found more rarely than in the

Scripture idiom,149 therefore, the passage below is worth mentioning.

Young 6-7, 39a, 18:

ouoei Mpetnanouje an Mpsoei ebol xMpefbal tarefnau ebol enejpjh

ebol xMpbal Mpefson

That, however, is a NT reference rather than a Shenoute-sentence – a reference where the

beginning of the sentence, the imperative, the very trigger of the future conjunctive is

missing and replaced by ouoei Mpetna-, ’Woe to him, who…’. That is the only

peculiarity of the passage and at first sight might seem something else, but it is evidently

the classical future conjunctive, quoted from Lk 6, 42:

Greek: e)/kbale prw=ton thÜn dokoÜn e)k tou= o)fqalmou= sou=, kaiÜ to/te

diable/yeij toÜ ka/rfoj toÜ e)n tw=? o)fqalmw?= tou= a)delfou= sou e)kbalei=n.

Coptic: nej psoi N¥wrP ebol xMpekbal tareknau ebol enejpjh eboletxMpbal Mpekson

In Mt 7, 5 the very same passage is translated with a future 1 rather than the future

conjunctive.

Greek: e)/kbale..kaiÜ to/te diable/yeij e)kbalei=n

145 GABR, 1990: ii; BROCK, 1979: 80, in the case of Greek into Latin and also into Syriac.146 LEFORT, 1948: 72/fn 10.147 LAYTON, 2004: §358, e.148 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.1.1.5.1149 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.1.1.5.1

30

Coptic: nouje … tote knanau ebol enejpjh ebol

1.1.1.2.2 The conjunctive: the only place to discuss here is Mt 5, 28 in the M version,

otherwise no conjunctives are found in final positions (for Mt 27, 49 in M, see 1.1.1.3).

The reason why it should be examined here is that it seems to translate a final infinitive

construction:

Greek: pa=j o( ble/pwn gunai=ka proÜj toÜ e)piqumh=sai au)thÜnM: ouan nim etqo¥t eusxime nfepicumi eras

The S version again has the pattern-to-pattern translation and thus an infinitive

construction: ouon nim etnaqw¥T Nsaousxime eepicumei eros. In the M version

of the sentence, I do not see a conjunctive used in final sense; it is again a slightly

different understanding or interpetation of the Greek sentence, thus the verb form is not

intended to be the exact equivalent of a final infinitive construction: ’everyone who looks

at a woman and desires her’150 is how the M translator interpreted the Greek, which is not

too far a meaning.151

1.1.1.2.3 The Limitative ¥ante occurs as final152 in the present text corpus only twice

in the M Matthew. In the original writings no final ¥ante occurs, but there are a few

consecutive ones, see 2.6.

Mt 23, 15

Greek: o(/ti peria/gete thÜn qa/lassan kaiÜ thÜn chraÜn poih=sai e(/na

prosh/luton

M: je tetnmou¥t ncalassa mn pet¥ouoou ¥antetetneire noueMproshlutos

S: je tetnmou¥t ntecalassa mn pet¥ouwou eroua mprosulhtos

150 Which is the classical use of the conjunctive, being part of the ”conjunctive chain” as ”con-joiner”, asDepuydt formulated it, the English ’Don’t drink and drive’ being a very good parallel, DEPUYDT, 1993: 9-10.151 As mentioned earlier, 1.1.1.1.2, I do not think the conjunctive has modal sense and each example of it,after a more careful study, turns out to have one of the original uses of the conjunctive. The examples ofMINK, 1972: 207 are not ”im prohibitiven bzw. adhortativen Sinn” but simply continuing the infinitivedependent on +parakalei, and the examples on 214 are not final but the translation of another text variant

kaiÜ sw/sei rather than the final participle/infinitive. Note also Stern, 1880: §448: ”Folge und Wirkungoder Zweck und Absicht in der untergeordneten Abhängigkeit vom Hauptsatze drückt der Conjunctiv fürsich allein nicht aus, wenn er diese Bedeutung nicht aus jenem selbst, etwa aus einem Futur oder Imperativoder Infinitiv entnimmt.“ cf. SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: 311.152 TILL, 1961: §§423, 312.

31

Mt 26, 58

Greek: e)ka/qhto metaÜ tw=n u(phretw=n i)dei=n toÜ te/loj

M: xafxmas mn nxuphreths ¥antfne epetne¥ope

S: nefxmoos mn nxupereths enau ecah

In both cases, the limitative translates a Greek final infinitive, and the S version again

follows the Greek pattern, using the final e plus infinitive pattern (see later 1.1.2). The

exact, word to word or rather pattern-to-pattern translation, aimed at in the (known) S

NT(s), is naturally the infinitive construction. Why does the M translator choose the

limitative instead, which is clearly not an evident final construction? As it cannot be

accounted for by the Greek original form, the reason must be the meaning of the final

infinitive felt by the translator; it is in fact on the borderline between an aim or purpose

and a (”final desirable) result”153 (Shisha-Halevy’s expression is again applicable). The

meaning of ¥ante- is really not that far from a consequence or result as it will be shown

in the section on consecutive clauses (2.6), therefore it was used as result and since ”the

dividing line between purpose (in order to), intended result (so as to), and consequential

result (so that) is sufficiently fluid”,154 the limitative was sometimes also used to express

purpose.155

1.1.1.3 The circumstantial is not evidently a final clause type at first sight, but it is said

by Till to be sometimes used as final,156 but this usage is not mentioned by Layton.157 In

the present corpus the circumstantial present only occurs as final in the translated

material, translating a final partitipium coniunctum, and once translating an infinitive

construction in Matthew 11, 1 where interestingly enough, both the Perez-version and M

has this pattern, whereas in Horner the e+infinitive can be found (see figs. 10, 11 at the

end of the chapter for equivalents). Till’s examples158 also come from translated texts, one

from Luke and the other from the Apophthegmata Patrum (see below).

153 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.1.1.5.1154 LAYTON, 2004: §504.155 As mentioned earlier, Till also mentions that ”seltener” it is used to express result or purpose, TILL,1961: §§ 312, 423.156 TILL, 1961: §§ 423, 328, 329.157about the circumstantial LAYTON, 2004: §§413-433.158 in §329 and §423.

32

Basically, the Coptic – the Egyptian in a wider sense – circumstantial does not have final

function or meaning,159 and I did not find any such clauses in Pachom’s, Shenoute’s,

Theodore’s or Horsiese’s writings. Another fact is, that considering syntactical functions

and meaning, the Greek partitipium coniunctum and the Coptic circumstantial are rather

similar, and the former is translated with the latter in most cases when a translation is

needed. One function of a conjunct participle is to express purpose,160 the future participle

is especially used that way,161 but in NT Greek the present participle is more common as

final.162

The only exception in the present corpus to the rule that the Greek participle of purpose is

translated with the Coptic circumstantial is:

Mt 27, 49

Greek: a)/fej i)/dwmen ei) e)/rxetai H)li/aj sw/swn au)to/n.

S: qw NtNnau je xhlias nhu enouxM Mmof

M: qw ntarnne je xhlias nnhou nfnexmf

In the Greek text the well-known classical usage of the future participle is seen, after a

verb of motion, with a clearly final meaning. The very same meaning can be and often is

achieved with the final infinitive in NT Greek,163 and that is exactly what one finds as text

variation in Codex Sinaiticus:164

a)/fej i)/dwmen ei) e)/rxetai H)li/aj sw=sai au)to/n.

The S translation, then, might have the Codex Sinaiticus text as its origin, translating the

final infinitive with its regular equivalent (see 1.1.2 and fig. 10), the e plus infinitive

construction. However, it cannot be excluded that the final future participle was translated

with the e plus infinitive.165 We have seen that the final participles in this text corpus are

regularly translated with the circumstantial present, but it is an important difference that

all the others are present participles, which have a much wider range of uses and as

159 On the circumstantial in the earlier phases of the language, see LUFT, 1983: §§ 7.1 and 7.3.1.3;JOHNSON, 1976: 32-99; JUNGE, 1996: 122-125; LOPRIENO, 1995: § 7.9.5,D.160 DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §442.161 In classical Attic exclusively the future participle, BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §246,g; for NT usage offinal future participle, see PORTER, 1992: §5.5, and DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §442.162 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §418163 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §§390, 418164 New Testament Transcripts: www.nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de

33

conjunct participles might indeed have several meanings,166 the final meaning is not so

obligate and evident at first sight – translating them therefore with a circumstantial

present, which again comprises several meanings,167 is very understandable and less

’risky’. Did the Coptic translators take the present participles as simple partitipium

coninunctum and disregarding or not recognizing their final meaning simply applied the

regular translation equivalent? Or did they deliberately create a final circumstantial to be

able to retain the partitipium coniunctum – circumstantial equivalence, thus being able to

give a pattern and content translation at the same time? I do not know yet. But if we

assume that in Mt 27, 49 the future participle version was the Vorlage, then it might show

that the translators took that as a more obvious final and therefore translated it with a

more obvious Coptic final pattern, the e plus infinitive.

This passage in M is further interesting because of its use of the conjunctive. In Bohairic,

the same verb form occurs:168

yas Ntennau je fnhou Nje hlias Ntefnaxmef

and there is also a S version using the conjunctive:169

qw NtNnau je xhlias nhu nFnouxM Mmof

It would be very difficult to account for the conjunctive as translation of either the final

infinitive or the final future participle, as I cannot accept the modal use of the Coptic

conjunctive (see above, 1.1.1.2.2) which Mink refers to regarding this passage: ”man den

Subjunktiv in finalem Sinn gebraucht.”170 It is a far more acceptable possibility that the

versions with the conjunctive were based on a different text variant, for example the one

cited by Mink:171

a)/fej i)/dwmen ei) e)/rxetai H)li/aj kaiÜ sw/sei au)to/n.

The two praesens imperfectum verb forms coordinated with kai/ are exactly what one

would expect to be the Vorlage for the Coptic praesens 1 continued by the conjunctive.

165 As MINK, 1972: §24 also points out.166 DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §§434-453; PORTER, 1992: §§5.1-5.6; BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §418.167 TILL, 1961: §328; LAYTON, 2004: §421.168 MINK, 1972: §24.169 MINK, 1972: §24.170 MINK, 1972: §24.171 §24.

34

Now, the passage where the circumstantial present translates a final infinitive and not a

participle – at least based on the known text variants:

Mt 11, 1

Greek: mete/bh e)kei=qen tou= dida/skein kaiÜ khru/ssein

S (Perez): afpwwne ebol xMpma etMmau ef+sbw auw efta¥eoei¥

S (Horner): afpwwne ebol xMpma etMmau e+sbw auw eta¥eoei¥

M: xafpone ebal xmpme etmme eftsaba auw efkhrusse

The text variant in Horner seems to be the only one to follow the Greek original in the

final. Two possibilities follow from that: 1) we might suspect a variant with a final

participle not known by the NT text critics, but that is not very probable and for the time

being cannot be answered; 2) or else we might accept that in this passage the final

infinitive was indeed translated in several versions with a circumstantial present. In this

respect, Mt 11, 1 would not be a sole case; Till’s examples of the final circumstantial

mentioned above are also translated Coptic passages172 and seem also to translate final

infinitives rather than final participles:

Apophthegmata Patrum, Macarius 2:173

auw neunhu Nqi Ntbnooue etxipjaie eusw xMpma etMmau

kaˆ Ãlqon t¦ kt»nh tÁj ™r»mou pie‹n ™x aÙtÁj.

Luke 1, 59 (in this case there is a circumstantial future)Coptic (S): auei eunasBbe Mp¥hre ¥hm

Greek: h)=lqon peritemei=n toÜ paidi/on

In the Luke-example, however, the question arises whether the ei +circumstantial future

is really intended to be final, an exact translation of the Greek final infinitive, or is the

’normal’ periphrastic174 use ’they came being about to circumcise him’ (=’they were

about to’).

The issue of the Greek final infinitive translated with the Coptic circumstantial, whether it

originates in the conjunct participle being translated with that, is worth noting and needs

172 That the Coptic version of the Apophthegmata Patrum is the translation of the Greek, see HOPFNER,1918: 1-11, 17-21 (see RUBENSON, 1995: 146-147); BOUSSET, 1923: 1-13 (see RUBENSON, 1995:147).173 ZOEGA, 1973: 347, 9; MIGNE, 1857-66: vol. LXV col. 259-260.174 LAYTON, 2004: §427.

35

further investigation in the future, I would not like to draw any final conclusions on that

now.

And closing down the thoughts on the final circumstantial, let me note a special case of

translation in Romans 15, 15:

Greek: e)/graya u(mi=n a)poÜ me/rouj w(j e)panamimnh?/skwn u(ma=j

Coptic (S): aisxai nhtN apomeros xws ei+ nhtN Mpmeeue

Where even w(j is taken over as a loanword from the well-known w(j plus participle

construction175 to follow the Greek original precisely, resulting in the final xws plus

circumstantial pattern – of which I know no parallel.176

1.1.2. Infinitive Constructions

An infinitive construction could be used to express purpose both in Greek177 and in the

Egyptian language.178 It is no wonder, then, that the e plus infinitive construction is

present in great numbers in translated179 and original Coptic writings as well, in the

former (mostly) as the natural translation equivalent of the Greek final infinitive, and in

the latter as a natural final pattern which does not need to have a Vorlage.

Mt 2, 2

Greek: kaiÜ h)/lqomen proskunh=sai au)tw?=

S: anei eouw¥t naf

M: xanei eouo¥t nef

Jn 4, 38

Greek: e)gwÜ a)pe/steila u(ma=j qeri/zein o(Ü ou)x u(mei=j kekopia/kate

S: anok aijeuthutN ewxS Mpete MpetN¥Pxise erofs

175 It can have three different usages, 1. a subjective comparative clause (as if/as though), 2. a subjectiveclause of cause (with the consideration that), 3. and (mainly with future participle) purpose (BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §246,g); although it might be debated on the grounds that this is not a future participle, Ithink this is a participle of purpose and it does not necessarily have to be the future in NT Greek, as wasmentioned earlier.176 Nor do the grammars; in LAYTON, 2004: §422 the xws plus circumstantial pattern is introduced ashaving the – expected – meaning as/as if/on the grounds that, and in §505 nce , the Coptic equivalent ofxws in comparisons is discussed.177 For classical, see: BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §237,2; WOLFF, 1956: §33; for later and NT Greek, see:BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §390; DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §366; PORTER, 1992: § 2.2; RADERMACHER,1925: 186;178 GARDINER, 1957: §163; ALLEN, 2000: §14.11; JUNGE, 1996: §2.2.3; JOHNSON, 1976: 279; LUFT, 1983:§7.5.3; TILL, 1961: §§423, 338; LAYTON, 2004: §502; for final infinitives in Shenoute, see RUDNITZKY,1956: 49-50.179 In the NT translations, see MINK, 1972: 208.

36

L: anak aeijauthne awsx Npete MpetN¥pxise araf

Pachom, Spiteful 6, 26nGagwnize xwwk oubeMpacws Mpdiabolos etMouaxK Nswf

Shenoute, Elanskaya 1.1.b.707 85, 26aek¥anouwn Nrwk e¥aje ejMpran Mpjoeis

From that it follows that in the NT texts the use of the Coptic infinitive pattern strongly

depends on the Greek pattern, whereas, in the original texts the author is much more free

to choose the final pattern – clause or infinitive – more natural to him.

First of all, comparing the rate of final clause patterns vs. e+infinitive patterns we find

that there is a significant difference in the overall picture between the two text types: in

translated texts the clauses are some 70%, while in original they are only slightly more

than the infinitives:

fig.6

Greek Transl Coptic

(S)

Original Coptic

Final clause patterns 70.09% 69.66% 50.83%

Infinitive constructions 25.21% 26.07% 49.17%

Other* 4.70% 4.27% -

*in Greek that is the participles, in Coptic the circumstantial present

The Greek seems to favour the clause patterns and the Coptic translation shows a stunning

similarity to the Greek in the percentage of clauses and infinitives, as opposed to the

percentages found in the original literature. This 1) shows a very strong adherence to the

original and a very precise, pattern-to-pattern translation in the NT, and 2) indicates that a

marked stylistic difference might be expected between the Coptic idiom of the NT and the

original Coptic texts. At this stage, this remains a cautious and general statement, as the

individual authors or texts can exhibit ’deviations’ from that rule; among the translations,

Matthew displays a rather balanced use of the two patterns, though still with clauses in

majority, and among the Coptic authors it is Pachom whose idiom seems to differ quite

significantly from the others, using the clause patterns with such overwhelming majority,

whereas Theodore and Shenoute seem to prefer the infinitive:

37

fig.7

Greek Matthew John Romans

Final clause patterns 48.15% 90% 60.47%

Infinitive constr 45.68% 5.45% 37.21%

Other 6.17% 4.55% 2.32%

fig.8

Coptic Matthew John Romans

Final clause patterns 50.62% 86.37% 62.79%

Infinitive constr 44.44% 9.09% 34.88%

Other 4.94% 4.54% 2.33%

fig.9

Original Pachom Theodore Horsiese Shenoute

Final clause patterns 78.38% 38.70% 51.94% 43.16%

Infinitive constructions 21.62% 61.30% 48.06% 56.84%

Adding up though, even with these differences, the use of the final infinitive is more

extensive in the original literature than in the translations.

1.1.2.1 In the original material, only one type of final infinitive construction is present,

the e plus infinitive, including naturally both simple and causative infinitives. The e plus

infinitive in the NT translations is the equivalent of the Greek infinitive in most cases, see

figs. 10-14 for exceptions which are usually other final constructions, but there are two

cases where a perfect 1 stands in the place of the expected infinitive:

Mt 14, 23 – where the perf 1 in S is only a text variant

Greek: a)ne/bh ei)j toÜ o)/roj kat” i)di/an proseu/casqai

S (Horner): afale exrai ejMptoou mauaaf e¥lhl

38

S (Perez): afale exrai ejMptoou mauaaf af¥lhl

M: xafalf exrhi ejmptau nsause xarixaraf xafproseuye

Mt 24, 1 – where the S has the infinitive

Greek: prosh=lqon oi( maqhtaiÜ au)tou= e)pidei=cai au)tw=? taÜj oi)kodoma/j

S: au+peuouoi erof nqinefmachths etouof epkwt

M: xanefmachths xauei eretf xautanouaf enkot

In the Greek, there is no text variant with a verbum finitum, but in Horner’s critical

apparatus a Syriac and an Ethiopian version is listed where also a verb form other than the

infinitive stands, ’and they showed’ translates Horner. That naturally raises the suspicion

that a Greek Vorlage with a verbum finitum must have existed. In Coptic the perfect 1 is

evidently not a final clause pattern and does not normally translate an infinitive or clause

of purpose.

1.1.2.2. In Greek the infinitive sometimes stands with tou=,180 and sometimes with a

preposition ei)j or pro/j.181 These constructions all express purpose, tou= and ei)j plus

infinitive appearing in Matthew and Romans – the latter clearly in favour of ei)j

to/+infinitive; pro/j plus infinitive is only present in Matthew in the examined text

corpus. From a translation aspect, from these infinitive constructions the tou= infinitive is

the most unanimously translated into Coptic, always with the e plus infinitive182 in both S

and M:

Mt 13, 3

Greek: e)ch=lqen o( spei/rwn tou= spei/rein

S: afei ebol Nqi petjo ejo

M: petnejja xafi ebal ejja

Also quite unanimously treated is the ei)j to/+infinitive, although twice it is translated

with a definite article plus the infinitive construction:

Mt 20, 19 – where only M uses the article:

Greek: paradw/sousin au)toÜn toi=j e)/qnesin ei)j toÜ e)mpai=cai

180 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §400; DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §397.181 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §402, 2 5; DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §406.182 see also MINK, 1972: 230.

39

S: Nseparadidou Mmof etootou Nnxecnos eswbe Mmof

M: nseparadidou mmaf exrhi epsunxedrion nnixecnos eptrousobe mmaf

Rm 11, 11

Greek: tw=? au)tw=n paraptw/mati h( swthri/a toi=j e)/qnesin ei)j toÜ

parazhlw=sai au)tou/j

S: xMpeuxe apoujai¥wpe Nnxecnos ep+kwx nau

And once, in Rm 4, 16, it is translated with jekas future 3, but in this Greek sentence

there is a i(/na before the infinitive construction.

The pro/j plus infinitive used in Matthew alone, has several translation variants, in fact

the simple e plus infinitive is used only once, in 5, 28, and only in S, whereas the M has a

conjunctive (see 1.1.1.2.2):

Greek: o( ble/pwn gunai=ka proÜj toÜ e)piqumh=sai au)th/nS: ouon nim etnaqw¥t nsaousxime eepeicumei eros

M: ouan nim etqo¥t eusxime nfepicumi eras

In 6,1 it is a clause in S and an infinitive construction with the definite article in M:

Greek: mhÜ poiei=n e)/mprosqen tw=n a)nqrw/pwn proÜj toÜ qeaqh=nai au)toi=jS: etmaaf mpemto ebol nnerwme jekas euenau erwtn

M: etneire ntetnelehmosunh Mpemta ebal nnrome eptroune erotn

In 13, 30 it is translated with an infinitive construction with the definite article in S and in

M:

Greek: dh/sate au)taÜ ei)j de/smaj proÜj toÜ katakau=sai au)ta/S: ntetnmorou nxn¥ol eprokxou

M: marou nxen¥ra¥ eptrourayxou

In 26, 12 there is an infinitive construction with the definite article in S, and a definite

noun in M:

Greek: balou=sa gaÜr au(/th toÜ mu/ron tou=to e)piÜ tou= sw/mato/j mou proÜj toÜ

e)ntafia/sai me e)poi/hsenS: tai gar ntasnouje mpeisoqn exrai ejmpaswma ntasaas epkoost

M: tei gar ecasouotb mpeisaqn ejnpaswma exases etakese

It is interesting to see these variations from a dialectological aspect, S and M employ

different solutions for the translation of this pattern on most occasions, only once (13, 30)

40

do they have the same pattern; it is another argument for thinking that the M version of

Matthew was not made from the S version183 – but that is subject of a different study; and

it is worth noting also that, unlike with the other infinitive constructions, here there is not

just one ’right’ translation – there is jekas fut 3 (also in S 23, 5), conjunctive, a definite

noun, e plus infinitive, and e plus definite article plus infinitive.

1.1.2.3 The infinitive constructions seem to be preferred after verbs of motion184 in

Matthew (25 out of 36 infinitives follow a verb of motion) and John (4 out of 6 infinitives

follow a verb of motion), but not in Romans (only 2 out of 16 are after a verb of motion)

where the infinitive (mostly with ei)j) is used invariably in any environment. In John, the

verbs of motion are frequently followed also by the i(/na–clause, even if the subjects are

identical (most of the cases) and thus an infinitive would be ideal – in these cases, i.e.

when a verb of motion is followed by a final clause with identical subject, the Coptic

tends to translate with an e+infinitive construction, for example (see APPENDIX for all

occurrences):

Jn 4, 8

Greek: oi( gaÜr maqhtaiÜ au)tou= a)pelhlu/qeisan ei)j thÜn po/lin i(/na trofaÜj

a)gora/swsinS: nefmachths gar neaubwk exrai etpolis e¥wp nau MpetounaoumF

L: nefmachths gar neaubwk axrhi atpolis atroutauaeik

Jn 12, 20

Greek: h)=san deÜ E(/llhne/j tinej e)k tw=n a)nabaino/ntwn i(/na proskunh/swsinS: neuNxenoueienin de ebol xNnetbhk exrai eouw¥T

L: neuNxenouaeianin abal xNnetbhk axrhi ap¥aeie auW¥t

On some occasions, however, the clause pattern is followed by the translators, in five

cases in S (11,11; 11,19; 11,31; 12,47; 12,47) and in two cases in L (11,11; 11,19).

In the original Coptic writings, the final infinitives are not more preferred after verbs of

motion, only in ten cases do they follow a verb of motion, and three of them are

quotations in Shenute (Ad phil 54, 9; 54, 25; 55, 13) from Canticorum, which are

therefore again translations.

183 I disagree here with GABR, 1990: 113-114 who states that obviously the M version was made based onthe S.184 As its usual syntactic environment, BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §390.

41

1.1.3 Greek – Coptic Equivalents

Summarizing the final patterns in the translated material, with regard to Greek and Coptic

equivalents, I refer to the tables below, which show very clearly that the Coptic

translations can be called pattern-to-pattern translations, following the Greek as closely as

possible choosing the pattern which is the most similar to the original.

The cases where the translated pattern differs from the original are:

Only M differs in Mt 5, 28 in using the conjunctive instead of the infinitive, see 1.1.1.2.2.

In Mt 6, 1 S uses a clause instead of an infinitive, see 1.1.2.2. Two Coptic variants (one S

and M) use a circumstantial present instead of a final infinitive in Mt 11, 1, see 1.1.1.3. In

Mt 14, 23 two Coptic versions, one S and one M, and in Mt 24, 1 M use perfect 1 instead

of a final infinitive, see 1.1.2.1. In Mt 23, 5 the Greek proÜj to/ infinitive is translated in

the S version with jekas future 3. In Mt 23, 15 the M version has ¥ante instead of a

final infinitive, see 1.1.1.2.3. In Mt 23, 26 and 26, 58 M has future conjunctive, see

1.1.1.2.1. In Mt 27, 49 S uses a final infinitive for the Greek future participle, and M uses

a conjunctive, see 1.1.1.3. In Mt 28, 8 M translates the Greek final infinitive with a

xinas-clause. In Jn 3, 17 and 9, 36 the L version has a future conjunctive to translate the

final clause, see 1.1.1.2.1. In Jn 4, 8; 6, 38; 12, 20 both S and L translate a Greek final

clause with a final e+infinitive construction; in Jn 11, 31 and 12, 47 only L translates a

Greek final clause with a final e+infinitive construction, see 1.1.2.3. In Jn 19, 16 both S

and L translate a Greek final clause with a final e+infinitive.

42

MATTHEW: GREEK – S COPTIC fig.10

Coptic

Greek

jekas

+ fut 3

mhpote

+ conj

e+inf e+article

+inf

Circumst Perf 1*

i(/na + subj 19 - - - - -

o(/pwj + subj 12 - - - - -

mh/pote+subj - 8 - - - -

infinitive - - 24 - - 1

prep/art+inf 2 - 9 2 - -

part fut - - 1 - - -

part impf - - - - 4 -

*occuring only as a text variant in 14, 23 where the version(s) in Horner has e+inf, Perez has perf 1.

43

MATTHEW: GREEK – M COPTIC fig.11

Coptic

Greek

jekes

+ fut 3

je

+ fut 3

xinas

+ fut 3

mhpws

+ conj

mhpote

+ conj

¥ante- circumst fut conj conj e+inf e+article

+inf

Prep

+noun

Perf

1

i(/na + subj 7 9 2 - - - - 1 - - - - -

o(/pwj + subj 10 2 - - - - - - - - - - -

mh/pote+subj - - - 5 3 - - - - - - - -

infinitive - - 1 - - 2 - - - 19 - - 2

prep/art+inf - - - - - - 1 - 1 6 4 1 -

part fut - - - - - - - - 1 - - - -

part impf - - - - - - 4 - - - - - -

44

JOHN: GREEK – S COPTIC fig.12

Coptic

Greek

jekas

+ fut 3

jekas

+ fut 2

je

+ fut 3

je

+ fut 2

e+inf Circumst

i(/na + subj 80 4* 9 1 4 -

o(/pwj + subj 1 - - - - -

infinitive - - - - 6 -

part impf - - - - - 5

*plus one variant in Jn 5,34 Horner has future 2, manuscript P Palau Rib (Quecke) has future 3.

JOHN: GREEK – L COPTIC fig.13

Coptic

Greek

jekase

+ fut 3

jekase

+ fut 2

je

+ fut 3

je

+ fut 2

jekase

+ conj

fut conj a+inf Circumst

i(/na + subj 49 15 4 6 1 2 6 -

o(/pwj + subj - 1 - - - - - -

infinitive - - - - - - 6 -

part impf - - - - - - - 3

The total number of finals is fewer than the Greek and S versions because the manuscript185 is not complete.

45

ROMANS: GREEK – S COPTIC fig.14

Coptic

Greek

jekas

+ fut 3

jekas

+ fut 2

je

+ fut 3

jekas

+ conj

e+inf e+art

+inf

Circumst

i(/na + subj 13 1 8 1 - - -

o(/pwj + subj 1 - 2 - - - -

infinitive - - - - 3 - -

prep/art+inf 1 - - - 11 1 -

part impf - - - - - - 1

185 ed. by THOMPSON, 1924.

46

CONCLUSIONS

1. It may be asserted that the majority of the finals is expressed with the clause-with-

conjunction patterns jekas or je plus future 3 or future 2 in both translated and original

text types. The rate of final clause patterns vs. infinitive constructions is, however,

considerably different, see fig. 6. The clauses with conjunction – disregarding now the

clause conjugations and others – are 69.66% (163 out of 234) of all finals in translations,

and 50.83% (122 out of 240) in original texts. In original writings the rate is even

reversed with Shenoute and Theodore, who use more final infinitive constructions than

final clause patterns. This is obviously accounted for by the fact that in Greek i(/na–

clauses are in majority and by the Coptic translation technique which aimed at a very

precise translation, translating patterns in many cases to follow the original as closely as

possible. This will be even more obvious in those syntactical positions where one would

not expect a jekas–clause at all (see 1.2.1; 1.3.1; 1.4.1).

Since the pressure of a Greek original is not present with Coptic authors (vs. translators),

their choice of pattern is different and the e plus infinitive is more frequently used than in

translations; the final clause patterns are not in such majority. The final clause patterns are

in fact more characteristic of Greek, of which the clauses governed by conjunctions are

very typical and their system is especially subtle mainly in classical Attic, than of

Egyptian where the system of subordination, embedding, etc. is rather different,186 the

language is rather sparing in conjunctions187 and these, in turn, act quite differently from

the Greek-type conjunctions and convert the sentence into a clause188 rather than govern

or determine it and its predicate in any way. Without wishing to make structural analyses,

I raise the question whether i(/na or o(/pwj plus subjunctive and the jekas or je plus

future 3 (or 2) clauses are identical on the structural level. ’No’ would certainly be the

answer of the structuralist colleagues, however, the surface structure of the two is rather

similar and that is a reason enough for the Coptic translators to have a preference for their

own Coptic clause-type rather than the infinitive when exactly a clause-type was used in

the Greek Vorlage. I suggest therefore that in the rise of the number of final clause-with-

conjunction patterns in Coptic, the interactions between Greek and Egyptian played a

186 see LOPRIENO 1995: 225; 229.187 GARDINER, 1957: §30.188 LOPRIENO 1995: 150-152.

47

significant role; at the same time I would like to emphasize the analytical tendence189 of

the Egyptian language development, which has its roots in pre-Greek times190 and

undoubtedly prepared the ground for the more extensive presence of clauses in the place

of certain verb forms – as even in Late Egyptian the final-prospective sDm=f existed and

was used to express purpose,191 in ’the place of’ a final clause; and this inner change of

the language192 was later interwoven with the bilingual situation and the Greek-dependent

literacy.

It is worth mentioning that the conjunction jekas does not have a pre-Coptic

predecessor; considering all this, the e plus infinitive construction in the finals seems to

be a more ’genuine’ Egyptian way of expressing purpose,193 whereas the clause pattern

and its abundance was urged by the translations.194 In this sense the xinas plus future 3

pattern, used in M, also belongs here, displaying a further Greek influence, the use of the

loanword.

2. Only in the translated Coptic texts do we find the e plus definite article plus infinitive

pattern, which was triggered by the ei)j to/ infinitive and even more by the proÜj to/

infinitive patterns, thus enriching the palette of Coptic final patterns, which is again a

stylistic influence on the language. For the time being, I assume that it is characteristic

only of the translation idiom of Coptic. Further research might confirm or refute that.

The widening of the range of Coptic final patterns is a linguistic influence of the Greek

language.

3.There are, however, considerable differences in the choice and preference of clause

pattern between translated versus original Coptic texts: the pattern most frequently used,

and in fact in overwhelming majority in the S NT is jekas plus future 3 – 79.14% of all

189 HINTZE, 1947 and also HINTZE, 1950; and SCHENKEL, 1966 who summarized the analytic tendencebriefly and precisely: ”an Stelle einer Morphemverbindung eine Wortverbindung tritt” (p. 124).190 The ’visible’ dividing line is between Middle Egyptian and Late Egyptian (Neuägyptisch), see HINTZE,1947: 89; Late Egyptian is the language phase when the traces of the analytical tendence and conversionare first seen: ”Die zweite Erscheinung, die dem Neuägyptischen ein so andersartiges Aussehen gegenüberdem Altägyptischen verleiht, ist das Streben zur analytischen Sprachform.“ HINTZE, 1947: 96.191 JUNGE, 1996: 3.4.2.192 Professor Nagel has a similar opinion: ”Der typologische Umbau hat die Adaptierung des Griechischenerleichert, ist jedoch nicht durch das Griechische bewirkt worden.” NAGEL, 1971: 349.193 For finals in earlier Egyptian, see GARDINER, 1957: §§219, 304.3; LOPRIENO 1995: 145; JUNGE, 1996: §5.3.3; JOHNSON, 1976: 279-280.194 I have said and will say again that translations from Greek had a major role in the formation anddevelopment of Coptic literary syntax, see also LEFORT, 1947, 10: ”Nous tenons pour certain quel’influence des traducteurs sur la langue littéraire sahidique fut principalement d’ordre syntaxique.”

48

final clauses, whereas in the original text corpus the je plus future 3 is in majority, but

even that is only 42.62% of all clauses (jekas plus future 3 is a mere 27.04%); future 3

and future 2 are used in a less biased fashion, although future 3 is still in majority: jekas

plus future 3 occurs 34 times, jekas plus future 2 occurs 19 times, je plus future 3 on 51

occasions and je plus future 2 on 8 occasions (i.e. 27 future 2 vs. 85 future 3); so the

choice between these clause types seems much less rigid and regulated in the original

literature. In S translations, jekas plus future 3 seems to have developed as the par

excellence final clause pattern, always at hand when the Greek original had a i(/na (less

frequently o(/pwj) plus subjunctive final clause pattern.

This is a very strong stylistic influence on the Coptic writing which prevails in the S

translation idiom. Subsequently it most probably has an impact on Coptic as a whole as

the authors who started the original Coptic literature were ’raised on’ and ’lived in’ the

language of the Scriptures, translated from Greek. These are read intensively, learnt by

heart and are example-like for the monks who started to write in Coptic.195 That causes

similarity between the two text types: jekas-clauses are used extensively, in which

translation literature probably had a role, but also the ’traditional’ e+infinitive

construction is used, in the original more frequently as there is no outside urge for the

clause. Besides that, it is very possible that the bilingual situation could have had such

impacts on the language, but it is difficult to prove and requires further study.

4. The jekas plus conjunctive pattern is ”a typical New Testament construction”196, not

found frequently in original texts; this pattern is in close connection with word order, a

clause is interposed between conjunction and verb form (hence anacoluthon) which

happens in the Greek original, and the Coptic translator follows it. This pattern is then

strongly Greek-dependent and translation induced; where it occurs in original writings, it

must be the imitation of the NT idiom.

5. The strong dependence on the Greek pattern in translations is further shown by the

study of the future conjunctive. In Mt 23, 26 and Jn 9, 36 where the passage and the

Greek i(/na–clause pattern could be interpreted in an alternative way, in dialects M and L

respectively the future conjunctive is applied to express the shade of meaning felt by the

195 see ROUSSEAU, 1985: 81.; RUBENSON, 1995: 120; not only for those who actually wrote literary works,but for everyone wishing to be member of a monastery it was compulsory to learn certain passages byheart, see also METZGER, 1977: 105.196 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: 197/fn.51.

49

translator in the i(/na–clause. The S versions follow strictly the pattern disregarding the

possible interpretations. In the S text of the studied corpus, the classical use of the future

conjunctive is seen, the ”post-imperatival apodotic form with a promissive overtone”,197

and it does not occur in final positions; for example:

Mt 7,7

Greek: Ai)tei=te kaiÜ doqh/setai u)mi=n, zetei=te kaiÜ eu(rh/sete, krou/ete kaiÜ

a)noigh/setai u(mi=n.

S Coptic: aitei tarou+ nhtN. ¥ine taretetNqine. twxM tarouwn nhtN.

In Shenoute, on the other hand, this use of the future conjunctive is pushed into the

background by auw + fut 1.198 In the original material analysed here, no ’final-suspicious’

future conjunctive occurs.

In conclusion, the future conjunctive has no final use in the analysed text material, the

only questionable case remains Jn 3, 17 in the L version.

6. The xws+circumstantial present pattern is born due to Greek influence because even

the introductory particle of the final participle was taken over in the translation.

7. Dialect M has more variety in its choice of pattern for the final. It applies jekes fut 3,

je fut 3, xinas fut 3, mhpote conj, mhpws conj, ¥ante, e+inf, e+article+inf,

preposition+noun, circumstantial present, conjunctive, future conjunctive, and perfect 1

(see figs. 3 and 11). Dialect L also has slightly more variety than S: its use of the fut 2

after jekase and je is more solid and frequent, and it applies the future conjunctive also

(see figs. 12 and 13). All this shows that dialect S is the most regulated and standardized

in its translation of the finals, its choice of pattern is consistent and solid and always

based on the Greek original (with some exceptions); it applies a strict pattern-to-pattern

translation technique, not giving individual interpretations to Greek final patterns, not

varying forms like M and L does occasionally (see 1.1.1.2.1).

197 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: 7.2.1.1.5.1198 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: 7.2.1.1.5.1

50

1.2 Object Clauses and Infinitive Constructions after Verbs of Exhorting

The clauses and infinitive constructions after the verbs ’order (sy to do sg), ask (sy to do

sg), tell (sy to do sg), force, command (sy to do sg)’ and also ’plan/plot to’ will be

examined here. The terminology comes from descriptive grammars of Greek,199 and as

this group is inevitably encountered by Coptic translators, it will be studied how they are

treated by them and what happens in original writings after that verb group. Significant

differences between the two Coptic text types are expected in this case resulting from the

new use of i(/na–clauses in later Greek in this environment and its copying in translations.

Considering the problem is also provoked by Till’s statement that: ”Wenn der Objektsatz

ein Ziel angibt, kann er die Form eines Finalsatzes annehmen.”200

In classical Greek the regular construction after verbs of exhorting is the

infinitive/accusativus cum infinitivo,201 and also the infinitive/ accusativus cum infinitivo

can be used as subject with certain impersonal verbs or equivalent expressions (’be

worthy of, it is necessary, it is appropriate’, and the like).202 In the language of the NT, on

the other hand, these verbs and adjectives are frequently followed by a i(/na–clause – a

phenomenon almost unknown in classical Greek203 – , which is a tendence described by

Moulton as well: ” i(/na instead of almost any infinitive (even subject infinitive e.g. Jn

16,7 sumfe/rei u(mi=n i(/na e)/gw a)pe/lqw and in 1 Co 9,18), for epexegetic infinitive, in

demands after verbs of willing and the like, and also in ecbatic sense, marks the beginning

of a process which ended in the disappearance of the infinitive and substitution of να with

subjunctive in Modern Greek.”204

The basic patterns in Coptic in object position after verbs of exhorting and as

subjects/subject expansions are infinitive constructions205 and final clause patterns,206 the

details will be given in the sections to follow.

199 The English term is a little complicated and always needs specification as to which verbs are in mind;the Hungarian term is very good and can be applied for various verbs and environments (célzatos alanyi éstárgyi mellékmondatok), and also shows that there is always a purpose implied (for this term see thetranslator’s note in BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §276, footnote).200 TILL, 1961: §415.201 BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §233; DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §202.202 BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §234.203 DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §202. o(/pwj (mh/) with the future indicative after verbs of reflection, striving,guarding was a regular form in classical Greek, but not found in the idiom of the NT, BLASS-DEBRUNNER,1961: §369204 MOULTON ET AL., 1963:103 and also 99; also BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §§ 388, 392.205 In Till, 1961: §335 – ”Ersatz eines Objektsatzes durch einen Infinitiv“.

51

1.2.1 Clause-with-conjunction vs. infinitive patterns

The clause-with-conjunction pattern used in the Greek is i(/na/o(/pwj with the subjunctive,

the latter conjunction being rather rare in the examined text corpus and in the NT in

general: ”in so far as it appears at all, is confined to the purely final sense and to

combinations with verbs of asking (parakalei=n etc.).”207 In John and Romans it does

not occur after these verbs, only in Matthew: 8, 34 after pareka/lesan and in 9, 38

after deh/qhte. In the clauses following this verb group, just as in real final clauses, the

choice between the two Greek conjunctions is irrelevant for the Coptic translator, both are

translated with the usual jekas/je, without any systematical change between the two.

The variation of Coptic clause patterns in that syntactical position is not very great in S,

jekas plus future 3 (future 2 as a variant again as in finals, see 1.1.1.1.1) and je plus

future 3 are used; in M, again, more variation can be found:

fig. 15

GREEK Matthew John Romans Total

i(/na + subj 12 11 - 23

o(/pwj + subj 2 - - 2

inf 11 1 3 15

total 25 12 3 40

206 LAYTON, 2004: §521.207 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §369.

52

fig. 16

COPTIC Matthew S John S Romans S total Matthew

M

John L

jekas fut

3

14 8 - 22 1 6

jekas fut

2

-* -* - -* - 1

je fut 3 - 2 - 2 7 2

e+inf 11 2 3 16 9 3

xinas fut 3 - - - - 3 -

xinas conj - - - - 3 -

conj - - - - 1 -

optative - - - - 1 -

total 25 12 3 40 25 12

*occurs in S only as text variant: in Mt 28, 10 Horner has fut 3, Perez has fut 2; in Jn 15, 16

Horner has fut 2, Quecke has fut 3.

Based on the evidence of S (confirmed by L), Coptic again strongly depends on the Greek

patterns, following the clause vs. infinitive pattern almost always, in an even more slave-

like manner than in the case of the final clauses.

fig. 17

S Coptic

Greek

jekas + fut

3*

je + fut 3 e + inf

i(/na + subj 20 2 1

o(/pwj + subj 2 - -

infinitive - - 15

* jekas + fut 2 occurs in Mt 28, 10 (Perez) and in Jn 15, 16 (Horner) as text variant to translate

i(/na + subjunctive.

53

fig. 18

M Coptic

Greek

jekes

+ fut 3

je

+ fut 3

xinas

+ fut 3

xinas

+ conj

conjunctive optative e + inf

i(/na + subj 1 5 3 3 - - -

o(/pwj + subj - 2 - - - - -

infinitive - - - - 1 1 9

fig. 19

L Coptic

Greek

jekase

+ fut 3

jekase

+ fut 2

je + fut 3 e + inf

i(/na + subj 6 1 2 2

Infinitive - - - 1

A non-adherence to the Greek original can be found in John 17, 4 where both S and L

have an infinitive construction where the original has a clause (the infinitive is used only

once in the Greek John in this position, Jn 4, 40 where both dialects follow).

17, 4

Greek: de/dwka/j moi i(/na poih/swS: entaktaaf nai etraaaf

L: Ntakteef nhei atraeef

In 15, 17 while S follows the Greek clause pattern, L has an infinitive construction, not a

clause:

Greek: tau=ta e)ntellomai u(mi=n i(/na a)gapa=te a)llh/loujS: nai eixwn Mmoou etethutN jekas etetnemerenetNerhu

L: neei de ++ Mmau atootNthne aMRrenetnerhu

In the original Coptic texts here examined the rate of je(kas)–clauses vs. e+infinitives is

strikingly different:

54

fig. 20

Pachom Shenoute Theodore Horsiese total

e + inf 5 16 10 8 39

je/jekas fut 3 1 1* - - 2

Total 6 17 10 8 41

*quotation

As seen in the table, in the original writings, the preference for infinitive constructions in

this position is obvious.

One of the two occurences of the final clause pattern is a quotation from Matthew in

Shenoute and therefore not original writing:

Ad phil 59, 2 (quotation from Mt 9, 38):

spSpjoies Mpwxs jekas efenejergaths ebol epefwxs

The other is the only place where the je with future 3 occurs as non-translation:

Pachom, Spiteful 18, 14-15:

auxwn etootN etbepra¥e jeenemi¥e mNtluph NxhtF

This verb, xwn, is otherwise always followed either by the infinitive construction

(Spiteful 2, 27; 8, 28; 22, 8; just like its synonyms, see APPENDIX) or by direct discourse

and so the imperative (which happens of course with other such verbs too):208

Pachom, Spiteful 8, 28

+xwn etootK emate etrekmestepeoou et¥oueit

Pachom, Spiteful 15, 2-3

efxwn de etootN Nqipjoeis jemerenetNjijeeue

First of all, it is rather surprising to see final clause patterns in this syntactical position at

all as it is rather ’un-Egyptian’, but on the other hand, ’very koine-Greek’. Further, the

fact that they are not very common in original Coptic texts in this object position, signals

that the phenomenon is a translation induced one and may not have become standardized

in Coptic as a whole, so that Coptic authors (vs. translators) would have employed it

208 These direct discourse forms are not included in the present study, they are naturally present in theGreek NT as well, and so in the translations.

55

extensively in their writing; it may have been alien to the nature of the Egyptian ear. It

was definitely a development in Greek, visible in the NT idiom (see above, 1.2), but it has

no traces in Egyptian and also in its latest phase occurs almost exclusively in the

translations of such Greek texts. Although ”im Koptischen haben die voraufgehenden

Sprachstufen geringeren Vergleichswert infolge des zeitlichen Abstandes und des sich

sukzessiv vollziehenden typologischen Umbaues der ägyptischen Sprache”,209 it is still

worth mentioning that no similar construction in pre-Coptic could be found,210 and it is

only partly in line with one of the main tendences of the Egyptian language development,

namely the analytic tendence211 in so far as clauses rather than synthetic verb forms are

used. It could still be argued that the appearance of final clause patterns – once becoming

so preferred – in object position could be an inner development of the Coptic language,

but it is more than suspicious that it is so definitely characeristic of translations.

fig. 21

Greek Transl Coptic (S) Original Coptic

Final clause patterns 62.5% 60% 4.88%

Infinitive constructions 37.5% 40% 95.12%

Looking at some verbs occuring in both text types, the difference of the preferred pattern

can be well seen.

A) The verb pei/qw is applied in both the translated and original texts, and in the

translation it has the final clause pattern after it, following the Greek original:

Mt 27, 20

Greek: oi( deÜ a)rxierei=j kaiÜ oi( presbu/teroi e)/peisan touÜj o/)xlouj i(/na

ai)th/swntai toÜn Barabba=nS: naryiereus de mN nepresbuteros aupeice Mpmhh¥e jekas eueaiteiNbarabbas

M: narjiereus de mn nepresbuteros xaupice mpmh¥e xinas eoueaitinbarabbas

In Theodore and Shenoute, on the other hand, where no ’outside force’ is present, the verb

is followed by the infinitive construction:

Theodore, Instruction59, 1-2

209 NAGEL, 1971: 349.210 As object of verbs (esp. ’give, command, wish’) the infinitive is used or a nominalized verb phrase,LOPRIENO, 1995: 182; 200-201; JUNGE, 1996: 229; GARDINER, 1957: §313.211 HINTZE, 1947.

56

eafpeice Mmof Nqipswthr etrefmesteNouw¥ throu Mpiaiwn

Shenoute, Monast disc 149, 26nemene¥peice Mmooupe etreusaxwou ebol Nxwb nim ecoou

B) Again, the verb sPsop is used in translation (for parakale/w or de//omai) and

original writing as well, the loanword parakalei also occurs, with different patterns: in

the Coptic (S and M) NT it occurs in Mt 8, 34 and 14, 36 with the final clause pattern

following Greek paraka/lw with clause, and in Mt 9, 38 following deh/qhte with

clause; in Rm 12, 1 and 16, 17 parakale/w/parakalei stands with the infinitive

construction in Greek and Coptic.

In the original texts, on the other hand, the verb (whether sPsop /sopS or parakalei)

only occurs with the infinitive construction212 (Pachom, Excerpta 29b,29-29a,16;

Theodore, Instruction 47, 34; 48, 7-8; 50, 33; 56, 6; Shenoute, Monast disc 139, 14;

Horsiese, Instruction 7 78, 1-2; Regulations 86, 4-5).

In Shenoute it is especially nice to see this verb and all the others with related meaning

always used with the infinitive construction, for example:

Monast disc 139, 14

auw +nasepswpou etreukw nai ebol

and once, unexpectedly, the jekas clause appears in this environment because the author

quotes from a translated text (the NT, see earlier, below fig. 20).

C) Interestingly, the verb keleu/w is always used with the infinitive in the Greek NT

books examined (Mt 8, 18; 14, 9; 14, 19; 14, 28; 18, 25; 27, 58; 27, 64), and the Coptic

versions act accordingly: in S the verb is translated with ouexsaxne and takes the

infinitive construction, in M it is keleue213 and takes the infinitive construction with two

exceptions, Mt 14, 28 (conjunctive, see 1.2.2) and Mt 27, 64 (optative, see 1.2.3).

In the original, as expected, ouexsaxne stands with the infinitive construction, just like

all other such verbs (unless with direct discourse):

Theodore, Instruction 53, 11

eafouexsaxne Nnefaggelos NjwwrexNteuqom eteire Mpef¥aje etreubolN

ebol xNMmRre Nnennobe

212 With the one exception described earlier, where Shenoute quotes Mt 9, 38.213 Except in 8, 18 where another Greek loanword epitasse is used.

57

1.2.1.1 The clause pattern xinas + conjunctive/future 3 occurs only in the M version of

Matthew in the examined text corpus, similarly to the xinas + future 3 in the finals, see

above 1.1.1.1.2 and 1.1.1.1.4.

As seen in fig. 18 above, the conjunctive is used three times (14, 36; 20, 21; 26, 63) and

the fut 3 also three times (12, 16; 27, 20; 28, 10) after a verb of exhorting, that is, their use

is very balanced. The question as to what determines the choice between them naturally

arises. The places where the conjunctive follows xinas:

14, 36

Greek: pareka/loun au)toÜn i(/na mo/non a(/ywntai tou= kraspe/dou tou= i(mati/ou

au)tou=M: nautobx mmaf pe xinas nsejex mmete eplau mpefxaite

20, 21

Greek: ei)peÜ i(/na kaqi/swsin ou(=toi oi( du/o ui(oi/ mouM: ajis xinas ntepa¥hre sneu xmas

26, 63

Greek: e)corki/zw se kataÜ tou= qeou= tou= zw=ntoj i(/na u(mi=n ei)/ph?j ei) suÜ ei)= o(

XristoÜjM: +tarka mmak mpN+ etanx xinas nktaman je ntak ete peYRS

And the places where xinas + future 3 follows the verb as object:12, 16

Greek: kaiÜ e)peti/mhsen au)toi=j i(/na mhÜ faneroÜn au)toÜn poih/swsinM: xafepitima neu xinas nneuouanxf ebal

27, 20

Greek: e)/peisan touÜj o/)xlouj i(/na ai)th/swntai toÜn Barabba=nM: xaupice mpmh¥e xinas eoueaiti nbarabbas

28, 10

Greek: a)paggei/late toi=j a)delfoi=j mou i(/na a)pe/lqwsin ei)j thÜn Galilai/anM: tame nasnhou xinas eoue¥e neu etgalilaia

The sentence patterns are much the same and there does not seem to be any possibility for

subcategorizing the verbs semantically, from which it follows that the xinas +

conjunctive and the xinas + future 3 patterns are equivalents and are in free variation in

the given syntactic position in M. The xinas + conjunctive pattern only occurs in object

clauses after verbs of exhorting and as complementary clauses (see 1.4.1.2) in the M

Matthew, not in ’pure’ final clauses, where xinas stands with the future 3 (see 1.1.1.1.4).

58

On the question of the conjunctive after the Greek conjunctions see later, 2.3.1.

1.2.2 The conjunctive appears in this object position only in the M version of Matthew

where the S has an e+ infinitive, following closely the Greek original:

14, 28

Greek: ke/leuso/n me e)lqei=n proÜj se e)piÜ taÜ u(/dataM: keleue nei ntaei eretk xijnmmau

The Greek sentence again has an infinitive (an accusativus cum infinitivo to be exact) as

object of the verb ’command’. In the M version of the passage, in my opinion, two

interpretations are possible: 1) The conjunctive is not object. It is not important what

semantic value the main verb has, the important thing is here that it is in the imperative.

In M, a different structure from the Greek can be seen: the conjunctive is not the object of

the main verb, but rather continues it. Imperatives are frequently continued by

conjunctives (with the same imperatival meaning of course), but in these cases the subject

of imperative and conjunctive is identical, when not, then it is the typical place of the

future conjunctive as ”post-imperatival apodotic form”214 (see above 1.1.1.2.1). In Mt 14,

28 the subject of the second verb is the first person singular, where the future conjunctive

is normally replaced by the conjunctive.215 So in this sentence the verb form would not be

in object position after a verb of exhorting, but rather there is an imperative plus future

conjunctive in the M version.

Despite the difference of structure from the Greek assumed in this interpretation, the M

sentence is very close in meaning: lit. ’Command me and I will go to you on water’, but

again undoubtedly less close than the S version which follows the pattern strictly (on

interpretations vs. literal/pattern-to-pattern translations see 1.1.1.2.1):

ouexsaxne nai etraei ¥arok xijNmmoou

2) The other interpretation is of course the one, which takes the conjunctive as object of

the verb keleue. This would not be an isolated phenomenon as the conjunctive occurs in

real object position after certain verbs216 (the exhorting and/or final Anklang is a

prerequisite) and thus ”kann die Bedeutung eines Objektsatzes haben“.217

214 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.1.1.5.1.215 Or by the auw plus future 1, cf. the examples from Biblical Coptic by POLOTSKY, 1944: 108-113, wherehe shows that the usage and the environments are the same, the only difference is the person.216 Already in Late Egyptian it is attested after Hn, tbH, see Volten, 1964: 64-65; and it is introduced as the”sequelling prospective „that”-form” role of the conjunctive by Shisha-Halevy as ” content object to aspecial inventory of verbs (parakalei ouw¥ etc.)”, SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: 313; conjunctive as object,

59

In the original text material examined no conjunctive was found in object position.

1.2.3 The optative is also present once in M where both in Greek and in S an object

infinitive stands after a ’command’:

27, 64

Greek: ke/leuson ou)=n a)sfalisqh=nai toÜn ta/fonM: keleue oun maroujjara erof

S: ouexsaxne qe etreuwrJ Mptavos218

Again, the S version follows the Greek pattern very closely in its verb plus object

infinitive, which is indirect discourse instead of a dialogue where the command or request

itself is given in direct quotation with an imperative. That is what the M version has, but

as the person is the third person (plural), the optative is applied (as jussive command219)

instead of the imperative which is used only with second persons. So the translator of M

uses direct discourse, the verb form is that used in a dialogue (allocution), independent of

the Greek and S object infinitive after the verb of exhorting. Another indication of the M

version’s independence of S.

1.3 Subject Clauses and Infinitive Constructions

”Subjektsätze, in denen ein Ziel zum Ausdruck gebracht wird, können die Form eines

Finalsatzes haben“220 writes Till in his Grammatik. Continuing the chain of thought of

section 1.2, the motivation or explanation for that phenomenon in Coptic will be studied

here. It is very similar to the syntactical position described in the previous sections, and

very similar results are expected as to Greek patterns, their Coptic translations, and the

patterns present in original Coptic writings.

STERN, 1880: §§440, 443; in §445 Stern remarks that in this position S prefers the e+infinitiveconstruction, while in B the conjunctive is ”zwar das gewöhnliche”, and M is closer to B than to S in thisrespect.Another study on the Late Egyptian conjunctive is LICHTHEIM, 1964 that deals with the so-called”independent conjunctive expressing a wish, command, or injunction” (p. 4), which is howeverquestionable (SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: 311).217 TILL, 1961: §416.218 The text version in Perez has etrenwrJ219 LAYTON, 2004: §340.220 TILL, 1961: §422.

60

In classical Greek, with impersonal verbs and equivalent expressions (e)/cesti, pre/pei,

kalo/n e)sti, sumfe/rei etc.), the infinitive or accusativus cum infinitivo could stand as

subject.221 In the NT, i(/na-clauses can be used in all these cases,222 except when the

infinitive ”has become firmly established” after an expression, e)/cesti for one.223

1.3.1 Clause pattern vs. infinitive construction: It is not surprising then that, besides the

infinitive construction, also in the Coptic NT final clause patterns are found as subject

with the given expressions. It is undoubtedly the result of the pattern-to-pattern translation

of the Greek Vorlage as in the case of the object clauses. There is again, just like in the

case of object clauses, quite a difference between translated Coptic and original Coptic

texts:

fig. 22

Greek Matthew John Romans total

i(/na +subj 5 9 - 14

infinitive 16 5 1 22

total 21 14 1 36

fig. 23

S Coptic Matthew John Romans total

jekas fut3 4 8 - 12

je fut3 1 1 - 2

e +inf 15 5 1 21*

total 20 14 1 35

*in verse 27, 15 the part ’it was a habit’ and so the following infinitive is left out in S

221 BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §234.222 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §393; DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §§ 213, 214.223 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §393.

61

fig. 24

M Coptic Matthew

e +inf 13

conjunctive 7

conditional 1

total 21

fig. 25

L Coptic John

jekase fut2 6

jekase fut3 3

a+inf 5

total 14

fig. 26

Original Coptic Pachom Shenoute Theodore Horsiese total

je fut3 - 1* - - 1

e+inf 11 30 4 19 64

circumstantial 1 - - - 1

conditional 1 - - - 1

total 13 31 4 19 67

*quotation

Considering first of all the rate of final clause vs. infinitive patterns, it can be observed

that in subject position the infinitive constructions are in majority in the Greek original,

and thus also in the Coptic translations of the NT books. The rate in this case, however,

tells us more about Greek than about Coptic as the Coptic translation very strongly

depends syntactically on the Greek, again giving a pattern-to-pattern translation – quite

like with object clauses.

In the original Coptic text corpus, the infinitive constructions are in vast majority and a

final clause pattern occurs only once, when it is quoted from the NT, so it is a translation:

Shenoute, Ad phil 59, 30 quoting Mt 10, 25:Sxw epesboui jeefe¥wpe Nce Mpefsax

62

The original of which is:xw epesboui jeefešwpe nce Mpefsax

and the original of that is:

a)rketoÜn tw=? maqhth?= i(/na ge/nhtai w(j o( dida/skaloj au)tou=

This is another very nice example of the phenomenon that from the original Coptic

syntactic environment a sentence/clause becomes conspicuous by having a different

construction from the ones in the environment, because it is a translated Coptic

sentence/clause; we have seen in section 1.2.1 that the jekas-clause after the verb spS in

Shenoute (Ad phil 59, 2) only occured because it was a quotation from Mt 9, 38. This

shows at the same time that the very appearance of the subject final clause pattern in

Coptic happened as a result of translations from Greek, and the translation technique,

which is a pattern-to-pattern one; the final clause pattern does not seem to be used in

subject position in original writings, based on the present text corpus.

The following table will show the exact rate of clauses vs. infinitives:

fig. 27

Greek Translated Coptic (S) Original Coptic

Final clause pattern 38.89% 40% 1.49%

Infinitive constr 61.11% 60% 95.52%

Other* - - 2.99%

*circumstantial present and conditional

A very good example for the preferred pattern in Greek/translated Coptic vs. original

Coptic is given by the expression ’it is not my/his will’:

Mt 18, 14

Greek: ou)k e)/stin qe/lhma e)/mprosqen tou= patro/j (…) i(/na a)po/lhtai e(Ün tw=n

mikrw=n tou/twnS: Mpouw¥ anpe Mpemto ebol Mpaeiwt (…) jekas efexe ebol Nqi ouaNneikoui

(Also in Jn 6, 39; 6, 40)

Shenoute, Ad phil 45, 24-25 (speaking of God, referring exactly to the above NT-place):Mpefouw¥ anpe etrelaau tako xMpeftameio

Monast disc 131, 8Mpaouw¥ anpe etrepjoeis kw nau ebol

63

1.3.2 The Greek – Coptic equivalents are:

fig. 28

S

Coptic

Greek

jekas

fut 3

je

fut 3

e +

inf

i(/na subjunctive 12 2 -

infinitive - - 21

fig. 29

L

Coptic

Greek

jekase

fut 3

jekase

fut 2

a +

inf

i(/na subjunctive 3 6 -

infinitive - - 5

fig. 30

M Coptic

Greek

e +

inf

conj cond

i(/na subjunctive 1 3 1

infinitive 12 4 -

In S and L, there is no deviation from the Greek pattern, each clause is translated with a

clause, and each infinitive is translated with the infinitive construction. The tendence seen

earlier is observed again as to the choice of final clause: L uses the future 2 frequently,

whereas S does not use it at all; in S the only variation is that of jekas and je.

M is again quite different from the other Coptic versions. It does not use final clause

patterns at all, in this sense is very independent of the Greek original, and much more free

in its choice of pattern in the subject position. One has to remember that also in object

position the clause patterns were rather different from S, but there were clause patterns.

64

Here, the Greek i(/na + subjunctive pattern is translated with the conjunctive, the

conditional or the e + infinitive instead.

1.3.3 Others: Looking at the alternative patterns used in M and in the original writings,

one will find the conjunctive, the conditional and the circumstantial present.224

1.3.3.1 Circumstantial: In original texts, the infinitive construction is clearly not in

paradigm with the final clause pattern in this syntactic position, but with the conditional

and the circumstantial. Among the subject clauses expressing an aim, no conjunctive was

found in the examined original texts, but in a closely related sentence type it occurs, see

discussed later 1.4.2. The circumstantial, on the other hand, appears in Pachom as subject

expansion of nanous:

Spiteful 5, 32 – 6, 1

nanous nak ek¥lhl ekrime eka¥axom ¥antekoujai Nxouo eros

etrekkapekxht ebol

There is also an example with the e + infinitive after the expression in Horsiese:

Instruction 7 76, 3

nanous nai e¥aje Nxouekarwi

1.3.3.2 There is only one example of the conditional225 in such subject position, also in

Pachom:

Excerpta 29b, 10 – 30b, 3

Noudikaion anpe ef¥anjpenef¥hre NteNkindunos NtmNtxhke taxof

In the M version of Matthew, there is also one example of the conditional in subject

position, in the above mentioned verse 10, 25 where S has je + future 3:

Greek: a)rketoÜn tw=? maqhth?= i(/na ge/nhtai w(j o( dida/skaloj au)tou=

M: kun epmachths afšanerch mpefsex

1.3.3.3 The conjunctive as subject226 occurs in the M version of Matthew on several

occasions. It will be discussed below in 1.4.2, together with the similar complementary

position.227

224 For entity statements as subject and subject expansion, see LAYTON, 2004: §§ 486-488.225 It occurs more often in subject position with expressions not having an implicit aim (although it issometimes hard to decide), eg. Shenoute, BLO 89, 15-20: ounoq Nnobe nanpe N¥anob¥N enetnhu

nan (also 89, 27-29; 54).

65

CONCLUSIONS (OBJECT AND SUBJECT)

1. The final clause pattern is used frequently as object and subject with certain verbs and

expressions in NT Greek, and the Coptic translations again follow the original very

closely, also applying the final clause pattern in these positions. Pattern-to-pattern

translation is even stronger than in the case of finals, with fewer ’deviations’, and more

obvious because unlike with finals, here such syntactic units are present which had not

been characteristic of the language and are used basically only in translations. That is a

marked stylistic impact on Coptic.

2. That syntactical effect seems to leave original writings basically untouched, where the

regular pattern with these expressions is the infinitive construction. The phenomenon was

induced by translations, which subsequently did not quite influence Coptic authors in this

case.

3. The transposition of the jekas–clause from an originally adverbial (final clause) status

to a nominal (object/subject) status228 is a Greek linguistic influence. The nominalized

jekas–clause appears and is used as object of certain verbs and as subject after certain

expressions due to translations from Greek. Not in any object or subject position though,

the meaning is a determining factor, the preceding verb or expression must imply an aim

or purpose.

4. Further, the appearance of final clause patterns in object and subject position, that is the

pattern-to-pattern rather than sense-to-sense translation of such constructions, and thus the

introduction of a new syntactic pattern, raises the question of how ’natural’ were the

Coptic translations.

5. Dialect M has the most variation in the patterns after verbs of exhorting as well, i.e. it is

the most independent translation of the three. It deviates from the Greek pattern

occasionally, and also to a certain Greek pattern it has more than one solution, for

example a i(/na–clause, while also a clause in M, can be je future 3, jekes future 3,

xinas future 3, or xinas conjunctive. Again, S is the most standardized and has the most

226 STERN, 1880: §442: where Stern also remarks that in S in this position the infinitive construction ispreferred, B likes the conjunctive and M is undoubtedly closer to B than to S also in this respect; TILL,1961: §421.227 For the conjunctive and the +infinitive in such environments, see SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: 7.4:“adnominal ’that’-form function“ and “adverbal ’that’-form function“.228 No similar phenomenon was discussed by Polotsky in his transposition theory in classical Egyptian,POLOTSKY, 1976.

66

solid translation equivalents, does not vary patterns, aims rather at a very close, pattern-

to-pattern translation of the Greek.

6. In subject position, the M dialect does not apply the final clause pattern at all (neither

jekes/je, nor xinas-clauses), thus being closest to original Coptic writings among

translations; again proving to be the most independent of the Greek original.

67

1.4 Complementary and Epexegetic Clauses/Infinitive Constructions

There is another subclass worth mentioning within the i(/na–group, the members of which

in the present text corpus are not very numerous and so further investigation is

undoubtedly needed. This subclass is nonetheless also rather lehrreich from the point of

view of Greek syntactic influence, and original vs. translated Coptic literature. The

following belong here and will (partly) be dealt with here: ”Complementary limitation of

nouns and adjectives signifying authority, power, fitness, need, set time, etc.”229 And

further, ”complementary or epexegetic limitation of verbs of various significance; the

clause defines the content, ground, or method of the action denoted by the verb, or

constitutes an indirect object of the verb”.230

In classical Greek the infinitive is used with such expressions,231 in the NT idiom,232

however, again the i(/na/o(/pwj–clause can occur in almost all these cases233 (o(/pwj far

less frequently), except with some expressions which take only the infinitive.234 In the

present work those expressions are examined which may take both the infinitive and the

final clause pattern, and besides studying their Coptic translations, these and similar

expressions will be examined in the original texts. This subclass is studied because the

appearance of the final clause pattern in it seems again to be Greek, and more precisely,

translation induced. As to the clause – infinitive rate in translated vs. original Coptic, very

similar results to object and subject position are expected in this case, based on the results

of the previous sections. Since infinitives are expected in original literature, no Greek

expressions are included which only take the infinitive (like du/namai, which acts in fact

as a kind of auxiliary)235 because then it would be difficult to see if and where Greek

influence lies.

1.4.1 Clauses vs. infinitive constructions: There are several expressions in the NT books

examined which take the infinitive on some occasions and the final clause pattern on

229 DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §216.230 DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §217.231 BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §237 and §234.232 On the epexegetic infinitive in NT, PORTER, 1992: §2.2233 DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §215; BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §393.234 For example dei= and e)/cestin, BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §393.235 du/namai and its Coptic counterpart ouNqom (in translation and original) always take the infinitiveconstruction in the text corpus.

68

others; the Coptic translations naturally almost always follow. Some of these expressions

then appear also in original Coptic texts (as loanwords or as Coptic equivalents) and they

always take the e + infinitive (for a complete list of occurrences with verb forms see

APPENDIX).

A good example is i(kano/j/ a)/cioj (ei)mi/) – Mp¥a

Mt 8, 8

Greek: ou)k ei)miÜ i(kanoÜj i(/na ... ei)se/lqh?j

S: N+Mpša an jekas ekeei exoun

Pachom, Spiteful 8, 19

auRpMp00¥a etreuso¥ou ejMpran etouaab Mpjoeis

Theodore, Instruction 50, 31 (for a following infinitive with xwste see 1.4.1.3)

afaan NMp¥a on etref+ nan Noukoui Nounof xMpa¥ai

In the case of the above expression, ’be worthy’, it would be tempting to think that the

conditioning factor for clause – infinitive in Greek is the subject of main clause and i(/na–

clause/infinitive, i.e. when the subjects are identical there would be an infinitive, when

different then clause. Comparing Mt 8, 8 and 3, 11 (ou)k ei)miÜ i(kanoÜj taÜ u(podh/mata

basta/sai) this seems exactly to be the motivation, but taking this latter and the same

sentence in Jn 1, 27 as examples, one sees that no such system can exist: ou)k ei)miÜ

a)/cioj i(/na lu/sw au)tou= toÜn i(ma/nta tou= u(podh/matoj. The Coptic (S) translator

might have been disturbed by the lack of this system and maybe therefore he translated 1,

27 with an e + infinitive rather than a clause as the subjects are identical. The M

translation of Mt 8, 8 is closely related to this subject-problem: n0ß!$ÖÄ+ßmpše en etrekei

using the causative infinitive construction instead of the clause applied by both Greek and

S; in Coptic, if one does not need to or want to adhere to a Greek clause pattern, there is

another way of indicating the new subject in such syntactical positions and still using an

infinitive construction, namely the causative infinitive in its ”persönlicher Infinitiv”236

quality.237

236 TILL, 1961: §335.237 See my 2005 article in ZÄS 132 (HASZNOS, 2005) where I was discussing the system of infinitive and

causative infinitive in the e + infinitive construction after the verb a)cio/w. The problem whether there was

69

The expression w(/ra e)/rxetai/ (e)sti/n) stands regularly with a following final clause

pattern in Greek (Jn 12, 23; 13, 1; 16, 2; 16, 32) which is translated by a final clause

pattern into Coptic, with the exception of 16, 2 where the L version employs the

conjunctive, see below 1.4.2.

Jn 12, 23

Greek: e)lh/luqen h( w(/ra i(/na docasqh?= o( ui(oÜj tou= a)nqrw/pou

S: ateunouei jekas efejieoou Nqi p¥hre Mprwme

L: atounouei jekase efajieau ji p¥hre Mprwme

In Rm 13, 11 the infinitive is used with the expression.

In the original writings, the infinitive construction is found after similar expressions,

(with the exception of a conjunctive in Pachom, see later 1.4.2)

Pachom, Spiteful 19, 31

peouoei¥ tenoupe pai etrNw¥ ebol mNpeprovhths je…

Horsiese, Regulations 92, 20-21

er¥anpeouoei¥¥wpe esmNpenkoui Noeik

In the following tables the Greek – Coptic equivalents are shown in the translated texts:

fig. 31

S

Coptic

Greek

jekas

fut 3

je

fut 3

xote

fut 2

e +

inf

xwste e

+

inf

i(/na subjunctive 13* 1 1 1 -

o(/pwj

subjunctive

2 - - - -

infinitive - - - 13 -

w(/ste inf - - - 1 1

tou= inf - - - 1 -

*future 2 is a text variant in Jn 16, 32 in Horner

any developed system in using the infinitive when the subjects are identical and the causative infinitivewhen the subjects are different (as POLOTSKY, 1987a: 153 states) – in object, complementary and finalpositions, needs further study and I deliberately left it out of the present study.

70

fig. 32

L

Coptic

Greek

jekase

fut 3

jekase

fut 2

je

Fut 3

jekase

conj

a +

inf

conj

i(/na subjunctive 7 3 2 1 - 1

infinitive - - - - 5 1

fig. 33

M Coptic

Greek

jekes

fut 3

xinas

conj

e +

inf

xwste

inf

i(/na subjunctive - - 1 -

o(/pwj subjunctive 1 1 - -

infinitive - - 4 -

w(/ste inf - - - 2

As the tables show, the translations are again very close to the original, they are pattern-

to-pattern translations. In S there is a difference to the Greek original in Jn 16, 2 where a

time clause is used in the place of the final clause pattern, but then in 16, 25 the Greek

itself also has a o(/te–clause in the same sentence, which the meaning naturally allows.

Otherwise the usual patterns and the regular translation equivalents are present, jekas of

course dominating over je; and future 2 is but a text variant again.

In L, again future 2 is extensively used and now there is more variety as to conjunction

and following verb form (jekase, je; future 3, future 2, conjunctive) than in S and also

the plain conjunctive is used.

Dialect M gives also a very close pattern-to-pattern translation in the case of the

complementary clauses, though their number is rather small in this material. There is just

one clause – infinitive construction deviation from the Greek (Mt 8, 8), but that happens

in S as well (Jn 1, 27). There is variation in the conjunctions jekes/ xinas.

71

As could be expected, the rate of final clause patterns and infinitives in this syntactical

position is very similar to the object and subject positions seen earlier, and a significant

difference exists also here between original and translated Coptic writings:

fig. 34

Greek Translated Coptic

(S)

Original Coptic

Final clause pattern 52.94% 47.06% -

Infinitive constr 47.06% 50% 96.77%

Other* - 2.94% 3.23%

*in translations there is one xote (o(/te) with future 2; in the original there is one conjunctive

The final clause patterns in complementary/epexegetic position are not used in the

examined original writings, and the infinitive construction makes up an overwhelming

majority. The infinitive construction occurs once with xwste, see below 1.4.1.3.

1.4.1.1 jekase plus conjunctive occurs in complementary position only once in this text

material, and only in dialect L:

Jn 5, 7

Greek: a)/nqrwpon ou)k e)/xw i(/na o(/tan taraxqh=? toÜ u(/dwr ba/lh? me ei)j thÜn

kolumbh/qran:

L: MN+rwme mmeu jekase erepmau natwx Nfnajt axrhi atkolumbhcra

S: mN+rwme Mmau jekas er¥apmooutwx efenojt epesht etkolumbhcra

That is the very same case as seen with the finals in 1.1.1.1.2, where an interposition

comes in between jekas and the verb form; the interposition is mostly an adverbial

clause but in Jn 11, 52 there is an object interposed which results in the

jekas+conjunctive pattern. The fact that this is a complementary rather than a final

clause is irrelevant from the point of view of the verb form following jekas – the same

conclusions can be drawn about this pattern as the ones in section 1.1.1.1.2, the

conjunctive present after jekas in final positions. When an adverbial clause, in this case

the circumstantial future, divides the conjunction from the verb form, the ”apodotic-

72

resuming role”238 is very plausible for the conjunctive.239 The case with the object

interposed is more problematic (see 1.1.1.1.2).

In any case, in the S version where the interposition is also present of course, the final

clause pattern jekas plus future 3 remains untouched.

1.4.1.2 The xinas plus conjunctive pattern occurs only in dialect M, as can be expected.

In complementary position no xinas plus future 3 pattern is found, unlike in object

position after verbs of exhorting, where both patterns occurred, see 1.2.1.1 and for the

xinas in finals with future 3 see 1.1.1.1.2 and 1.1.1.1.4.

The only occurrence of the pattern is Mt 12, 14 after the expression sumbou/lion

e)/labon. That expression occurs three times in Matthew and is followed by different

patterns, which will be shown below together with the S version:

12, 14

Greek: e)celqo/ntej deÜ oi( Farisai=oi sumbou/lion e)/labon kat” au)tou= o(/pwj

au)toÜn a)pole/swsin

M: xauei de ebal nqh nevarisaios xaueire nousajne eraf xinas nsexotb

mmaf

S: auji¥ojne erof jekas euemooutf

22, 15

Greek: to/te poreuqe/ntej oi( Farisai=oi sumbou/lion e)/labon o(/pwj au)toÜn

pagideu/swsin e)n lo/gw?

M: tote xau¥e neu nqh nevarisaios xaueire nousajne eraf jekes

eoueqorq eraf xnouseje

S: auji Nou¥ojne jekas eueqopf xNou¥aje

27, 1

Greek: sumbou/lion e)/labon pa/ntej oi( a)rxierei=j kaiÜ oi( presbu/teroi tou=

laou= kataÜ tou= I)hsou= w(/ste qanatw=sai au)to/n

238 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.2.6.1.239 Diachronically: to the conjunctive standing as apodosis after temporal or conditional clauses in LateEgyptian, see VOLTEN, 1964: 65.

73

M: xaueire Nousajne nqh narjiereus mn nepresbuteros mplaos eIHS xwste

exatbf

S: auji¥ojne Nqi naryiereus throu mN nepresbuteros Mplaos xwste

emouout Mmof

In 12, 14 and 22, 15 the Greek original has o(/pwj plus subjunctive final clause pattern in

the complementary position, and both M and S translate it in a pattern-to-pattern manner,

applying the Coptic final clause pattern; again, while S uses the ’regular’ jekas plus

future 3 pattern, M applies once the jekes plus future 3 and once the xinas plus

conjunctive pattern. As seen in the earlier sections, the latter pattern does not appear in

pure final clauses.

However, the Greek Matthew does not only use the final clause pattern after

sumbou/lion e)/labon, but also the w(/ste plus infinitive pattern in 27, 1 – see following

section.

1.4.1.3 The xwste + infinitive occurs in complementary/epexegetic position after two

expressions in the examined translated texts: sumbou/lion e)/labon only in 27,1 (for the

Greek and Coptic sentences see previous section), and e)/dwken e)cousi/an Mt 10, 1.

In the previous section it was shown that final clause patterns were used after

sumbou/lion e)/labon as complementary clauses expressing an aim; in its third

occurrence, on the other hand, there is an infinitive of result with w(/ste as introductory

particle240 – of course also in complementary position,241 and with no difference in

meaning. Again, the fact is that the pattern in Coptic is completely determined by the

Greek pattern, so the latter should be examined for explanation. Blass and Debrunner also

point out that result (real and possible), intended result and purpose are sometimes hard to

distinguish and so i(/na/o(/pwj–clauses and the infinitive of result with or without w(/ste

tend to occupy each other’s places.242 That is what clearly happens in the examples given

above where the very same expression, sumbou/lion e)/labon, with the same meaning

and reference induces now the final clause pattern, then the infinitive of result.243

240 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §391.241 In my article (HASZNOS, 2004/2005: 41) I regarded Mt 10, 1 and 27,1 clauses of result, but they are onlyformally so.242 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §391.243 The ambiguity of purpose and result is not at all exclusive for Greek, it exists in Coptic as well (and notonly in translations), see LAYTON, 2004: §504.

74

Although the pattern is syntactically the complement of the expression – i.e. it is not an

adverbial clause of purpose or result – the alternation of the surface structure is

understandable; it is due to the fact that the expression governing it implies both purpose

(’they plotted against him in order to kill him’) and an intended (hoped) result as well

(’they plotted against him so that he will be killed’).

The other example of the xwste + infinitive, this time present only in M, is also quite

interesting as the governing expression e)/dwken e)cousi/an induces 3 different patterns:

Mt 10, 1

Greek: e)/dwken au)toi=j e)cousi/an pneuma/twn a)kaqa/rtwn w(/ste e)kba/llein

au)ta/

M: xaf+ neu nte3ousia eniPNA nakacarton xwste exioue mmau

S: af+ nau Nte3ousia NnePNA Nakacarton enouj ebol

The S version applies the e plus infinitive construction without consecutive xwste, and

the plain infinitive construction is exactly one of the further possibilities (in Jn 1, 12 and

5, 27) after e)/dwken e)cousi/an:

Jn 1, 12

Greek: e)/dwken au)toi=j e)cousi/an te/kna qeou= gene/sqai

S: af+ nau Nte3ousia etreu¥wpe N¥hre Ntepnoute

And the third possibility is the final clause pattern, in Jn 17, 2:244

Greek: e)/dwkaj au)tw=? e)cousi/an pa/shj sarko/j i(/na pa=n o(Ü de/dwkaj au)tw?=

dw/sh? au)toi=j zwhÜn ai)w/nion

S: entak+ naf Nte3ousia Nsar3 nim jekas ouon nim entaktaau naf efe+

nau Nouwnx ¥aenex

L: Ntak+ nef Nte3ousia Nsar3 nim jekase ouan nim Ntakteetou nhei eia+

neu Nouwnx ¥aanhxe

In the case of e)/dwken e)cousi/an the same argument can be made about the alternation

of xwste plus e+infinitive and the final clause pattern as above in the case of

244 I admit that in this particular sentence the clause could be confused with a final clause, but based on a

very similar sentence in Marc 11, 28, I am sure this one is also a complementary: ti/j soi e)/dwken thÜn

e)cousi/an tau/thn i(/na tau=ta poiv=j; Coptic: nim pentaf+ nak Nteie3ousia jekas ekeR nai

75

sumbou/lion e)/labon. In Greek also the infinitive can follow this expression and when

it does, it is normally translated into Coptic with the e plus infinitive, see section 1.4.1.

In the examined original writings, this pattern occurs once in complementary position,

after Mp¥a:

Theodore, Instruction 3 41, 26:

afaan NMp¥a xwste etrenRpwb¥ Mpenxise

The first half of the sentence and thus the whole sentence structure is the same as 50, 30-

31 (seen in 1.4.1 above) tN¥Pxmot (NtootF)245NtMpnoute peiwt Mpenjoeis IS

peYS jeafaan …; so the e+infinitive pattern and the xwste e+infinitive pattern are

equivalents and in paradigm after Mp¥a, though the latter is far less frequent in this text

corpus. The occurrence of xwste in complementary position reminds us of the pattern

used in translated Coptic texts where the Greek original w(/ste plus infinitive of result

induced this Coptic form. This use of xwste by Theodore, then, might be an imitation of

translated Coptic literature, the NT, where through Greek influence not only real result

infinitives but also complementary and epexegetic ones had sometimes a xwste before

them; in the examined translated (and Greek) texts the expression i(kano/j/ a)/cioj/ Mp¥a

does not take xwste plus infinitive, although it exactly expresses a ”consequence

resulting from some quality”,246 which explains why Theodore might have used the

complementary xwste e+infinitive pattern after that word.

1.4.2 The Conjunctive is used A) once in original texts in this syntactical position:

Pachom, Spiteful 11, 19-20

w pebihn pnaupe pai nGRchrion

In the translated material it occurs only in dialect L twice, of which 16, 2 is closely related

in meaning to the Pachom-place:

Greek: e)/rxetai w(/ra i(/na pa=j o( a)poktei/naj u(ma=j do/ch? latrei/an prosfe/rein

tw=? qew=?

L: sNnhu jiouounou Nteouan nim etnamouout MmwtN meeue je efire

Nou¥M¥e Mpnoute

245 present only in 41, 25246 The term is used by BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §379 in connection with qualitative-consecutive relativeclauses.

76

The conjunctive in the Pachom-sentence could just as well be put among the subject-

expansions247 but can also be analyzed as a complementary or epexegetic ’expansion’ of

the nominal sentence pnaupe pai. That similarity, sometimes overlap, is why the

conjunctive in subject position in M (1.3.3.3) will also be discussed here.

The conjunctive as subject or subject expansion has historical roots in the Egyptian

language, this is one of the syntactic positions where Volten was speaking of the

”pseudo”-conjunctive,248 differentiating it from the classical continuing conjunctive:

Pap. Spiegelberg X13-14: jn p3 sHn nfr mtw=j tj ”is it the best counsel that I let (the army

of Egypt arm itself?)”

An example from the M Matthew where the conjunctive is used similarly, where both

Greek and S have the infinitive construction (also 18, 7; 18, 8; 18, 9) is 17, 4:

nanous nen ntnqw mpeime

And another, where Greek and S have the final clause pattern, while M still uses the

conjunctive (also 5, 30 and 18, 6) is 5, 29:

srnafre gar nek nteoue nnekmelos taka

The Pachom-sentence also joins this group, where again the conjunctive expands the

subject, in this case of a nominal sentence. In Shisha-Halevy’s classification this use of

the conjunctive is the ”sequelling prospective „that”-form”249 which in his view is the

successor of the old prospective „that”-forms sdm.w=f and sDm=f, rather than of an

ancient use of the conjunctive.250

B) A different case is Jn 13, 10

Greek: ou)k e)/xei xrei/an ei) mhÜ touÜj po/daj ni/yasqai

L: NfRyria en eimhti Nfianefourite

S: nFRyria an eimhti eia nefouerhte

where there is an eimhti interposed between ’he does not need’ and ’to wash’, which very

probably is the cause for the conjunctive rather than the infinitive. In the L John, both

other occurrences (2, 25; 16, 30) of xrei/an e)/xw have the final clause pattern jekase

future 2, following the Greek pattern. No conjunctive occurs otherwise with that

247 For the conjunctive in this position as part of the entity statement group, see LAYTON, 2004: §§486-487.248 VOLTEN, 1964: 61.249

And within that ”an appositive theme in a delocutive nominal sentence: pdikaion/oudikaion pe

+conj”, SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: 313.

77

expression. It is very similar to the jekas plus conjunctive cases, seen in 1.1.1.1.2, where

there is an interposition between jekas and the verb form which then turns from future 3

to the conjunctive. However, this interposed eimhti does not seem to cause any

syntactical changes in S, where the e + infinitive (though the first e is missing through

haplography) stands after the expression Ryria, following the Greek Vorlage.

CONCLUSIONS

1. In the translated texts, all three dialects have very close pattern-to-pattern translations

this time, and they all use the final clause pattern in the majority of the cases when Greek

has the final clause. Dialect L has most variety in the final clause pattern now, dialect M

varies the xinas +conjunctive and the jekes+future 3 patterns, and S again is the most

consistent and pattern-strict using basically the jekas+future 3 pattern to translate Greek

i(/na/o(/pwj +subjunctives.

2. The xinas plus conjunctive pattern appears here as well, only in dialect M. It seems to

be used in M exclusively for object and complementary clauses expressing an aim, not for

pure final clauses.

3.The xwste plus infinitive pattern occurs in translations, where the Greek original has it.

That is thus again a Greek syntactical influence, caused by the pattern-to-pattern

translation technique. In Greek it is originally a consecutive pattern, but as purpose and

result are sometimes mixed, that pattern is sometimes mixed with final patterns, even in

places where the syntactic position is not a real final or consecutive one, but an object or

complementary one. In the examined material the Coptic translators follow the pattern

rather than the sense, using the final clause pattern in non-final positions and using the

consecutive pattern in non-result and non-final but complementary positions.

4. Behind the appearance of the xwste e + infinitive pattern in complementary position

in original writings, Greek syntactical influence might be detected, it may be an example

of the stylistic influence the NT translations had on the original Coptic literature; another

possibility is naturally that the pattern was already part of the Coptic idiom through

hellenization, thus was used by both translators and authors. Its sole occurrence in

Theodore does not seem to support the latter possibility. The pattern is otherwise rather

scarcely represented in the examined corpus (both translated and original).

250 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: 312-313.

78

5. In original writings, the final clause patterns do not appear in

complementary/epexegetic position. The infinitive constructions are used in almost every

case.

6. The appearance and extensive use of the final clause pattern in

complementary/epexegetic position only happens in translated Coptic in the examined

text material; its use is again translation induced.

7. The conjunctive in subject (expansion) and complementary position is not new,

examples of it can be seen already in Late Egyptian. In the examined text material rather

few of these conjunctives are present, but it occurs in both translated and original Coptic

texts.

79

2. Clauses/Infinitives of Result

As a next group, the clauses of result will be studied in the examined text corpus, also

collecting features in common and differences between the translated and the original

Coptic writings. Some clauses of conceived result are also grouped here, where again

i(/na/ o(/pwj–clauses appear in the Greek original. Also, I am referring to sections

1.1.1.2.3 where the ambiguity of purpose and result has been discussed.

2.1 Clause of Result or Infinitive of Result? A consecutive clause in Greek takes either

the indicative or the infinitive after w(/ste,251 the former expressing the actual result, the

latter a possible or expected result.252 In the NT idiom, however, this distinction had

probably disappeared as the indicative is very rare, the infinitive dominating throughout:

in the examined text coprus the indicative appears only once (Jn 3, 16), and according to

De Witt Burton, this is the only place in the NT where the w(/ste with the indicative is in

clearly subordinate position.253 In the NT books, not only the w(/ste plus infinitive but

also the infinitive in itself can express result:254 in the examined NT books there is an ei)j

to/ plus infinitive in Romans 1, 20 expressing result. The question now inevitably arises,

whether one can speak about a ’clause’ here, with conjunction plus governed verb form or

w(/ste is really an introductory particle255 for the infinitive of result. This question is

relevant, among others, because it arises also in the case of Coptic consecutives.256

Definitely clauses are – as always – the i(/na / o(/pwj plus subjunctives found as clauses of

conceived result in this material (Mt 23, 35; Jn 9, 2).

2.2 In the translated texts, the Greek – Coptic equivalents are as follows:

251 BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §275; DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §234; BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §391;PORTER, 1992: §2.2 (the latter two discuss basically the infinitive of result).252 BORNEMANN-RISCH, 1999: §275; DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §235.253 DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §236; cf. also: ”The use of the indicative after w(/ste in really dependentclauses, possible in Attic, is not genuine NT idiom.” BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §391.254 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §391, 4.255 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §391.

80

fig. 35

S

Coptic

Greek

xwste

e + inf

xwste

conj

xwste

pf 1

jekas

fut 3

je

fut 3

e +

inf

w(/ste inf 10 2 - - - -

w(/ste indicative - - 1 - - -

o(/pwj subj - - - 1 - -

i(/na subj - - - 1 1 -

ei)j to/ inf - - - - - 1

fig. 36

L Coptic

Greek

xwste

pf 1

jekase

fut 3

w(/ste ind 1 -

i(/na subj - 1

fig. 37

M Coptic

Greek

xwste

e + inf

xwste

conj

jekes

fut 3

w(/ste inf 1 9 -

o(/pwj subj - - 1

It is clear that where the Greek original has the ’traditional’ w(/ste plus infinitive (or

indicative), then the Coptic also takes the loanword xwste and uses it together with

either the e + infinitive or the conjunctive when the Greek has an infinitive, or with a

verbum finitum (perfect 1 here) when the Greek has the indicative.

256 On consecutive clauses in the Coptic NT see my article, HASZNOS, 2004/2005, where they are calledclauses.

81

Jn 3, 16 (the sole indicative)

Ou(/twj gaÜr h)ga/phsen o( qeoÜj toÜn ko/smon, w(/ste toÜn ui(oÜn toÜn monogenh=

e)/dwkenS: tai gar te ce entapnoutemere pkosmos xwste pF¥hre Nouwt aftaaf

L: teei gar te ce NtapnouteMrre pkosmos xwste pF¥hre Nouwt afteef

Mt 15,33 (infinitive in Coptic)

Po/qen h(mi=n e)n e)rhmi/a? aÓrtoi tosou=toi w(/ste xorta/sai oÓxlon tosou=ton;S: ennaxe eteiašh noeik twn xnpeijaie xwste etsie oumhhše nteiqot

M: anneqn ouaše oun naik ton xmpeimanjaih xwste etsie peimhše nteiqat

Mt 27,14 (conjunctive in Coptic)

KaiÜ ou)k a)pekri/qh au)tw?= proÜj ou)deÜ eÁn r(h=ma w(/ste qauma/zein toÜn h(gemo/na

li/anS: ntof de mpefouw¥b nlaau n¥aje. xwste nfršphre nqi pxhgemwn emate

M: mpfjeouw nef nouseje mmete. xwste nte pxhgeman eršphre emaša

First of all, it is again evident that the Coptic translations are very close to the original, the

Greek syntactic patterns are followed. The Coptic e plus infinitive is of course the precise

translation equivalent of the Greek infinitive, as seen throughout the study, the

conjunctive, on the other hand, raises some questions.

2.3 The infinitive construction and the conjunctive after xwste can be found both in

translated and in original Coptic writings. Shisha-Halevy, when studying Shenoute’s

idiom, remarks: ”The conjunctive after xwste is in paradigm with e- infinitive and the

“that”-form etrefswtm; the conjunctive usually expresses an intended consequence,

whereas etref conveys the meaning of a consequence naturally or automatically

ensuing, objective, unintentional and even undesirable” with the footnote: ”Somewhat

like the Greek opposition of w(/ste + finite verb vs. w(/ste + infinitive”.257 Although the

opposition in Greek is not ‘intended/not intended’, but rather ‘real or actual/ not real’.

In the translations there can be no aspiration to follow an opposition present in classical

Greek (see 2.1) as the Greek itself has almost only the infinitive, as seen above, and

where it does have a verbum finitum to express a very real result, then the Coptic also

translates with a conjugated verb form with time reference, rather than the “atemporal”258

conjunctive. It is also remarkable that in the NT, the S and M versions differ substantially

as S applies basically the e plus infinitive, only in two places the conjunctive after xwste

257 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.3.1.1 and fn. 73.

82

(Mt 13, 32; 27, 14), whereas M applies the conjunctive after xwste nine times and the e

plus infinitive only once (Mt 15, 33). The two places where (also) S has the conjunctive

are no different semantically, no more real or intended than all other consecutives (eg. Mt

13, 2; 13, 54 and 15, 30 are also past tense contexts like 27, 14 and S has the infinitive

construction), and the only feature in common, which is not present in the other

consecutives is the presence of the Nqi construction in the sentence:

Μt 13,32

KaiÜ gi/netai de/ndron, w(/ste e)lqei=n taÜ peteinaÜ tou= ou)ranou= kaiÜ

kataskhnou=n e)n toi=j kla/doij au)tou=S: šasR ounoq Nouoote. Ns¥wpe eunoq N¥hn. xwste Nseei NqiNxalateNtpe

Mt 27,14

KaiÜ ou)k a)pekri/qh au)tw?= proÜj ou)deÜ eÁn r(h=ma w(/ste qauma/zein toÜn h(gemo/na

li/anS: ntof de mpefouw¥b nlaau n¥aje. xwste nfršphre nqi pxhgemwn emate

In the S translation of the NT then, the basic translation equivalent of the w(/ste plus

infinitive is the xwste plus e + infinitive, a precise pattern-to-pattern translation, which

is in complementary distribution with the conjunctive – the latter being used when the

nominal subject must be expressed after the verb form and so Nqi is employed,259

evidently to follow the Greek word order.260

In the original texts, on the other hand, this opposition does not work; in Pachom’s

Fragments there are two xwste plus conjunctive constructions (28a,11; 29b,24), in

Spiteful there is one (3,12), in Horsiese’s Regulations there are two (90, 8; 90, 18) all of

them without Nqi. In the examined Shenoute-texts only the e + infinitive follows xwste

so the opposition there cannot be examined. Theodore, however, is very similar to the S

NT in using the xwste plus conjunctive construction only when there is Nqi (Instr 3 40,

24 xwste nFpwt Nqipeinoq Nteimine eratou Nnkosmikon; 40, 30 xwste nFnau

Nqipetoue¥+pefswma). It should be examined therefore whether another conditioning

factor for infinitive construction/conjunctive can be found. Looking at the sentences from

a semantic point of view, I think a good system of real (actual, has happened)

result/expected or generally true (not yet happened) result evolves, for example:

258 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: 301.259 Or the other way around, according to Depuydt: 1993: 42-43, the Nqi is employed because of theconjunctive so that the nominal subject does not get in between the two verbs, as they very closely belongtogether. That, however, does not explain the use of the conjunctive after consecutive xwste.

83

Spiteful 3, 12 (past narrative context, the result also happened in the past)auenwylei … e¥auclibe mmoi ¥antepaxht paake xwste Ntameeue jeNtaqoman te eaxerat

Fragments 28a, 11 (past narrative context, the result also happened in the past)af¥wne xNounoq N¥wne xwste nF¥wpe xNouekstasis

In these (and most other cases of the conjunctive), I would not speak of the results being

”intended”261 but they actually happened as a result of the action in the main clause.

The results expressed by the xwste plus e+ infinitive pattern, on the other hand, seem to

have a general or a future reference, and they have not yet been realized, for example:

Fragments 29a, 3-4oupe pai pa¥hre etrekei xwwk exrai epeima xwste etreukrine Mmok

Having discussed the consecutives in the Greek NT idiom and the loss of the classical

Greek system of real/expected result = indicative/infinitive, infinitives being used in the

great majority of the cases, NT Greek cannot really be the source of such a distinction.

Additionally, when Greek did employ the indicative on one occasion, then Coptic

translated it with a perfect 1 rather than a conjunctive. It follows from that that the

infinitive/conjunctive distinction after xwste is either an inner development of the

language,262 or it is a non-translation influence of the Greek language which happened in

the long bilingual situation (”primäre Hellenisierung”263), not through translations of the

NT – that, however is impossible either to prove or to refute. It is also a question why the

conjunctive is used for real result, which took place in the past following from the

happenings in the past narrative of the main clause, rather than a past conjugated verb

form, for instance a perfect 1. That leads us to the next section.

2.3.1 The conjunctive after xwste and other Greek conjunctions / particles /

modifiers. Besides the distribution of the infinitive vs. conjunctive after xwste, the

function, meaning or origin of the conjunctive after that and other Greek conjunctions

needs to be discussed. In the examined text material the conjunctive was seen in the S

260 About the importance of word order and its reproduction, cf. BROCK, 1979: 81.261 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.3.1.1.262 This whole system of consecutives is a late phenomenon in the language, and again an analytic form; inclassical Egyptian, result was expressed occasionally with the sDm=f form, ”virtual clause of result”; the jxparticle with sDm=f which expresses mostly ”desired future consequence”; or with the sDm.jn=f verb formwhich indicates sequel in past narratives or less frequently it is used ”to name or describe a consequence totake place in the future” (GARDINER, 19573: §§220, 228, 429).263 NAGEL, 1971: 334.

84

dialect only after mhpote and xwste, its appearance after the Coptic conjunction jekas,

only with an interposed adverbial clause,264 has been discussed, see 1.1.1.1.2 and 1.4.1.1.

In dialect M it was seen employed after mhpote/ mhpws, xinas and xwste.265 After the

negative final mhpote / mhpws the conjunctive is invariably used, in both S and M;

dialect M uses more Greek conjunction+conjunctive patterns than S in the given material,

it prefers conjunctive after xwste as opposed to S where the e+infinitive is the regular

form, and M employs also xinas – not used in literary S – with the conjunctive, thus

standing closer to dialect B.266

After xwste the conjunctive is in paradigm with the e plus infinitive, see 2.3. Depuydt

was of the opinion that this use of the conjunctive is new, came ”with the advent of Greek

influence on Egyptian”267 and did not study it when discussing the function of the verb

form in the ”conjunctive chain”.268 Shisha-Halevy, on the other hand, states that this is the

”sequelling prospective „that”-form” in which we can see the survival of the old

prospective „that” sDm.w=f and the so-called prospective sDm=f, – although it is not clear

how the conjunctive overtook this function – and one of the cases where the conjunctive

is in this syntactic status is the ”post-conjunctional and post-adverbial „coupling” clause

form: arhu+conj, xwste/ mhpote +conj, je+conj”.269 This is one group then, a Greek

conjunction + conjunctive;270 the conjunctive is neutral in its semantic properties in this

position and the ’meaning’ is given by the conjunction, thus they together build up a new

unit271 and a semantic field, final or consecutive or even an object or complementary

position after certain verbs and expressions. That is why Shisha-Halevy’s phrasing is very

adequate: ”post-conjunctional and post-adverbial „coupling” clause form”.272 The

xwste, when standing with the conjunctive then, is different from the xwste before the

infinitive construction because in the latter it has only ”semantisch präzisierende

264 In dialect L there is one case (Jn 11,52) where the interposition is the emphasized object, rather than anadverbial clause, the precise role of that conjunctive is still questionable (see earlier, 1.1.1.1.2).265 The conjunctive after Greek conjunctions in S and B, STERN, 1880: §448.266 cf. STERN, 1880: §448 on B using xina and S not.267 DEPUYDT, 1993:13.268 DEPUYDT, 1993: 5-6.269 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: 313.270 In the present study they can be found in the following sections: 1.1.1.1.3: finals – mhpote /mhpws

+conj; 1.2.1.1: object position – in M xinas +conj; 1.4.1.2: complementary position – in M xinas +conj;2.3: consecutive – xwste+conj.271 As Shisha-Halevy puts it: ”a modifier preceding a non-autonomous verb form to create a newautonomous whole” SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: §7.3.1.1.272 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: 313.

85

Funktion”273 as the e+infinitive can in itself express result not only with the support of the

introductory particle.

2.4 Final clause patterns can be found in the Greek original as i(/na/o(/pwj + subjunctive

and – as can be expected – are translated into Coptic with the final clause patterns

jekas/je + future 3. Their number is rather small, one final clause pattern of result

occurs in each examined NT book:

Mt 23, 35 (main clause in verse 34)

Greek: (…) kaiÜ diw/cete a)poÜ po/lewj ei)j po/lin o(/pwj e)/lqh? e)f” u(ma=j pa=n

ai(=ma di/kaionS: NtetNpwt Nswou jinepolis epolis jekas efeei exrai ejNthutN Nqi snofnim Ndikaios

M: ntetndiwge mmau ebal xnoupolis eupolis jekes eresnaf nim eei exrhiejnthnou nte ndikaios

Here, the reference of the whole sentence is future, it is not something that has actually

happened, but rather a prophecy, thus the result expressed in the clause is not actual but

imagined; it will be realized if/when the actions in the main clause have been realized.

Jn 9, 2

Greek: ti/j h(/marten ou(=toj h)Ü oi( gonei=j au)tou= i(/na tufloÜj gennhqh=?;S: nim pentafRnobe paipe jN nefeiotene jekas euejpof efo NbLle

L:nimpe NtafRnabe peeipe JN nefeiatene jekase euajpaf efo NbLle

In this case the meaning implied is: it is a known fact that he is blind – the question is,

whether this fact is at all the result of somebody sinning, i.e. the cause/antecedent is

inferred, the question being provocative.

Rm 11, 11

Greek: mhÜ e)/ptaisan i(/na pe/swsin;S: NtaujwrP jeeuexe

In all these instances, one is dealing with a conceived result – let me quote De Witt

Burton’s observations here: ”The relation of thought between the fact expressed in the

principal clause and that expressed in the clause of conceived result introduced by i(/na is

that of cause and effect, but it is recognized by the speaker that this relation is one of

273 NAGEL, 1971: 349.

86

theory or inference rather than of observed fact. In some cases the effect is actual and

observed, the cause is inferred. So, e.g., John 9:2. In other cases the cause is observed,

the effect is inferred. So, e.g., 1 Thess. 5:4. In all the cases the action of the principal

clause is regarded as the necessary condition of that of the subordinate clause, the action

of the subordinate clause as the result which is to be expected to follow from that of the

principal clause.”274

In the original material one je+ future 3 and one jekas + future 2 pattern was found

with consecutive meaning:

Pachom, Spiteful 17, 26-27tenou ou petK¥aat Mmof jeekeR¥Mmo eroi;

Here, on the other hand, the situation and the result is real, it is happening now, tenou,

that the monk is becoming a stranger, through the anger in his heart. It is thus not a

conceived result.

Horsiese, Instruction 7 77, 5ekqw¥T … ¥antekqNteukeria nG+ naf Nnetxapektwp xixoun Ntek¥thnjekas erepnoute xwwf mNpefyRS IS napwxT Nteforgh mNpefqwnT exraiejwk

There is future reference in this clause, the result will definitely happen if the monk

continues his habitual behaviour.

2.5 The e plus infinitive pattern occurs in the translated material only once when the

Greek original has an infinitive without w(/ste and with ei)j to/ to express result:275

Rm 1, 20

Greek: taÜ gaÜr a)o/rata au)tou= a)poÜ kti/sewj ko/smou toi=j poih/masin

noou/mena kaqora=tai h(/ te a)i+/dioj au)tou= du/namij kaiÜ qeio/thj ei)j toÜ ei)=nai

au)touÜj a)napologh/touj

S: nefpechp gar ebol xMpswnT Mpkosmos. xNneftamio eunoei Mmoou. senaueroou ete tefqomte ¥aenex mNtefmNtnoute etreu¥wpe emNtou ¥ajeMmau ejw

In the original texts the e+infinitive construction occurs to express result more often, for

example:

Theodore, Instruction 3 50, 1tenouqe mNNsanai throu au¥ine Nsaktoou etreu+jrop Nnentauei eratou

274 DE WITT BURTON, 1898: §219.275 BLASS-DEBRUNNER, 1961: §391, 4.

87

Shenoute, Monast disc 145, 3anok de neio Mpajoeis anpe etrapwt Ntootou Nnetji Mmoi Nqons

From the two examples it is evident that both real result – in the first instance – and

conceived result can be expressed by the infinitive construction, the Shenoute-sentence

clearly has a ’real’ cause in the main clause (’I was not in control of myself’) and the

result is inferred, it would have been realized if the cause had not been negative (the real

result would be ’I was in control of myself so that I could run away from them’).

2.6 ¥ante, the Coptic limitative sometimes has consecutive meaning.276 In the examined

text corpus, this can be found only in the original Coptic writings:

Spiteful 10, 11pai Ntafagwnize oubepjwxM ¥antefRRro ejNnefjaje

Spiteful 11, 20H nGRce NoukwxT ¥antekrwkX NtFkakia thrS

Shenoute, Monast disc 143, 7auw Mpenetmmau ei ¥antepnoute qwnT eroou nFtreubwk epesht eamnteeuonx

It is not always evident whether the limitative or the consecutive meaning is to be

understood, or both can be acceptable in some sentences.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Also in this case, Coptic has pattern-to-pattern translation in the examined NT books.

In fact, there is no deviation from the Greek pattern at all, when there is an indicative after

w(/ste, the Coptic also applies a conjugated verb form with time reference (perfect 1),

when there is a final clause pattern, the Coptic translates with one.

2. The appearance of the final clause pattern in translations is due to the Greek pattern and

the translation technique.

3. In translations, the final clause pattern in consecutives only appears when the Greek

original employs it; since the Greek uses it only with clauses of conceived result, in

276 TILL, 1961: §312.

88

translated Coptic only in clauses of conceived result do we find the final clause pattern. In

original writings, a clause of real result can have a final clause pattern occasionally.277

4. Although the e+infinitive construction seems to be a proper way of expressing result,

since the Coptic authors employ it, in the translations this only occurs when the Greek

original employs an infinitive of result without w(/ste. That, together with the last point,

results again in a significant stylistic difference between translated and original Coptic

writings. And again shows the strong pattern-to-pattern translation technique.

5. In the NT translations ¥ante is not used to translate a Greek consecutive form. In the

present material it only occurs as consecutive pattern in the original writings.

6. All three dialects follow the Greek pattern in this case, no deviations occur even in M.

This is the only examined clause-type where this happens, and this shows well that this

pattern was an organic part of the language as a whole.

277 cf. ”ambiguity of purpose and result” LAYTON, 2004: §504.

89

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

At the end of the study, it will be concluded that Greek syntax had influence on Coptic

syntax. The patterns for final clauses/infinitives, object and subject clauses/infinitives

and clauses/infinitives of result were all influenced by the Greek means of expression in

these. The separation of the two text types, translated literary idiom and original literary

idiom showed that significant differences exist between the choice of pattern of the two.

That subsequently shows that certain Greek-influenced phenomena are evidently the

result of the translation activity, remaining confined to the translation idiom; others are

used by the Coptic authors as well – in this case two possible reasons may be, a) the text

of the NT translations influenced their idiom, or b) these patterns were known and used

due to the long bilingual situation.

1. In the examined texts, several syntactic patterns were found which are used only in the

translated material and follow precisely the Greek syntactic pattern, even though it has no

’past’ in the Egyptian language: jekas+fut 3 (fut 2)/ je+fut 3/ xinas+fut 3/

xinas+conj (i.e. final clause patterns) in object and subject position after certain

expressions which take the final clause pattern in NT Greek also, and in complementary

position xwste e+infintive pattern is added to these. The Coptic translation idiom is

thus different from the original writings syntactically-stylistically; really telling are the

cases where there is a NT-quotation in a Coptic author and the syntactic pattern is

different from the one used normally by that author: e.g. 1) in Shenoute a quotation from

the NT (Mt 9, 38) in Ad phil 59, 2 where there is a jekas+fut 3 clause in object position

after the verb sops which always takes the infinitive construction as object in Shenoute

and the other authors, 2) also in Shenoute, a je+fut 3 pattern is found in subject position

after Sxw quoted from Mt 10, 25 in Ad phil 59, 30, where normally an infinitive

construction (more rarely circumstantial present, conditional) is employed in original

Coptic – these are exactly the cases where the translated Coptic texts differ substantially

as they again follow or rather copy the Greek pattern and use final clause patterns where

they would not be used in Egyptian. The question of how ’natural’ the Coptic translations

were arises. The motivation for a very literal, in our case let us call it pattern-to-pattern,

translation is the sacred nature of the text whose language is considered inspired and

sacred (cf. Jerome: ’where even word order is a mystery’278), thus has to be put into any

278 In his Letter to Pammachius, cited from BROCK, 1979: 69-70.

90

other language very precisely,279 ”to bring the reader to the original” and not ”the

original to the reader”.280 Just as in the case of the Hebrew Old Testament, whose Greek

translation was also ”accepted as inspired”281 and was not to be altered:282 'Epeˆ kalîj

kaˆ Ðs…wj dihrm»neutai kaˆ kat¦ p©n ºkribwmšnwj, kalîj œcon ™stˆn †na

diame…nV taàq' oÛtwj œconta, kaˆ m¾ gšnhtai mhdem…a diaskeu».283

It is thus a chosen technique, not some kind of incompetence in Coptic stylistics and

syntax, to copy the given Greek patterns; the translators knowingly create in many cases

non-Coptic-like but necessarily very Greek-like patterns, and thus sentences, in their

texts. As Sebastian Brock points out, the translator has to make a decision at the

beginning of his work about what technique he will follow, sensus de sensu or verbum e

verbo; the criteria for his choice are 1. the nature of the text he is translating, 2. the

relative prestige of the two languages concerned and 3. the extent to which the source

language is still widely known.284 In the bilingual land of Egypt, Greek was naturally

known by everyone, though evidently not spoken by all the population and not on the

same level. The prestige of Greek was quite understandably high, the fact that it is the

language of the Gospels obviously added to that in the eyes of the Christians. The nature

of the text in this case needs no further comment – from all these it inevitably follows that

very literal, based on the present study, pattern-to-pattern translations are made.

Also, the aim with sacred, canonical texts is beyond doubt uniformity. This is best shown

in the present material in the S texts, which are the most pattern-strict and consistent. It is

most likely undesirable to have a large number of translation varieties for the NT books,

with each translator having his own personal favourite patterns for the final clauses,

clauses of result, etc. In this text corpus it is the M dialect that shows most varieties in

these clause patterns, choosing from the conjunctions (mhpws besides mhpote ; xinas

besides jekas) with following verb forms (conjunctive besides future 3) and

independent verb forms/clause conjugations more freely than the others, and this dialect

definitely shows the most deviations from the Greek pattern:

279 ”This is a situation of ”texts in contact” (…) as well as ”languages in contact”.” SHISHA-HALEVY, 1990:100/fn.4.280 BROCK, 1979: 73.281 BROCK, 1979: 72.282 Just as the original Scriptures are not to be altered, cf. Deut 4, 2.283 AristEpist 310, 3-6.284 BROCK, 1979: 70-74.

91

S deviates in 3.33% of the cases (12 times out of 360)

L deviates in 8.51% of the cases (12 times out of 141)

M deviates in 14.29% of the cases (21 times out of 147). As mentioned earlier, S really

shows very precise and reliable pattern-to-pattern translations.

With this very close translation of the sacred text of the New Testament, with all its

syntactic grecisms then, the Coptic text becomes marked and another sacred text with its

sacred language is born.285

2. With original writings, naturally, it has to be borne in mind that the idiom of the

authors is individual with its own characteristics, and the genres they write in is also a

determining factor: for example, the language and style of ’Regulations’ for a monastic

community will be different from an ’Instruction’ or ’Logos’. It must also be remembered

that the founder of monasticism, and thus the creator of the genre ’regulations for the

community’, Pachom – the author of the oldest Coptic original literature286 still extant –

was influenced in his language by his military past, the style of the regulations is very

similar to the Roman military command formulae, as shown by Professor Peter Nagel.287

Further, the above described ‘sacred language’ of the Coptic NT inevitably had its

influence on the Coptic authors who ‘grew up’ on it and learnt large parts by heart, and so

when they started writing, a lot of formulae and patterns must have permeated into their

language use. There are, however, features which are common to the original writings as

opposed to the translations:

A) in finals, the clauses are in majority everywhere, but in original writings the infinitive

constructions are used more extensively (inf: 49.17% - clauses: 50.83%) than in

translations (inf: 26.07% - clauses: 69.66%). The choice of final clause pattern is not so

rigid and regulated in originals: the jekas+future 3 pattern became the par excellence S

translation equivalent for the Greek i(/na (o(/pwj)–clauses, but in the original it is not so

dominant at all, and its use in that material might be influenced by the NT translations.

The growing preference for clauses as such is partly a natural, inner development of the

language, the analytical tendence referred to throughout the study. But translations and

then the extensive reading of the translated texts undoubtedly had a role in it – the Greek

285 cf. FÖLDVÁRY, 2008, writing about the translations of the Old Testament and the hebraisms therein,which are thus marked and build up a sacred language.286 NAGEL, 1974: 114.287 NAGEL, 1974.

92

language of the NT clearly shows this preference and the Coptic translations copy that,

while Coptic authors are still more free from it.

The mhpote plus conjunctive pattern appears in translation only when the Greek original

has the mh/pote plus subjunctive negative final pattern – it is not very frequent, and is

used in the original texts almost to the same degree; its use there might be the result of

imitating the NT translations. A comparative analysis with non-literary Coptic texts

would probably show whether it was used outside literary texts at all.

The xinas plus future 3 pattern does not appear in original writings, just as it is not used

in the S translations. It is confined to the M translations in the present text material.

The e+definite article+ infinitive final pattern is used only in the translated text material

to translate the Greek ei)j to//proÜj to/ +infinitive patterns. This widening of the range of

Coptic final patterns is a linguistic influence of Greek, however, it seems to have affected

only the translation idiom.

The conjunctive and the future conjunctive have no modal value and are not employed in

the place of finals – no Greek influence has to be sought here.

B) jekas+fut 3 (fut 2)/ je+fut 3/ xinas+fut 3/ xinas+conj (i.e. final clause patterns) in

object and subject position after certain expressions which take the final clause pattern in

NT Greek are clearly the result of translations. These patterns in the given syntactical

position do not occur in original texts, only when quoted (the one exception remains

Spiteful 18, 14), but are employed when the Greek original requires in translations. This

results 1) in a marked stylistic-syntactic difference between translated and original Coptic

texts, and 2) in the birth of the nominalized jekas–clause in Coptic.

C) The final clause patterns jekas+fut 3 (fut 2)/ je+fut 3/ jekase+conj (only L)/

xinas+conj (only M) in complementary/epexegetic position occur only in translations,

but there they are used extensively due to the pattern-to-pattern translation technique.

This linguistic impact of the Greek is again translation induced, and seems to be part only

of the translation idiom.

The xwste+ e+infinitive pattern is used in the translations almost always when the

Greek original employs it in complementary/epexegetic position; in the original texts it

only occurs in Theodore once, which raises some questions. Was this pattern in

93

complementary position used in the whole of the Coptic idiom, unlike the final clause

patterns which are confined to translations? Or was Theodore imitating the NT idiom? Or

is there an insertion in his text which is a translated passage? Again, the study of more

literary and non-literary Coptic texts can probably give answers to these questions.

D) In the case of the consecutives, original and translated literature use the same xwste

patterns, but the choice of infinitive / conjunctive is different: S translations use basically

the e+infinitive, only Nqi triggers a conjunctive with no difference in semantics, whereas

in the original writings there seems to be a system for using the conjunctive for real (has

happened) result and the e+infinitive for not real (not yet happened) result. The

disappearance or lack of such a system in the translations is Greek influence, because the

translators imitated the Greek pattern, w(/ste plus infinitive, which at that stage of the

language was not in opposition with another pattern based on the real/expected result

distinction (one exception in John where the real result is with indicative).

The very presence of the xwste consecutive patterns in both text types extensively,

shows that it is not translation induced. It may therefore be, most probably, part of the

Coptic idiom as a whole. It is another possible explanation that the authors of the original

texts were influenced by the translated idiom of the NT and took the pattern over – this

seems less likely, as the pattern is slightly different in their writings (see above).

The limitative ¥ante is employed only in the original writings to express result, this is

due to the fact that Coptic translators translated patterns (at least in the here examined

clauses), and no such pattern exists in Greek.

Again Theodore acts uniquely among the authors: in the consecutives he uses the xwste

plus conjunctive pattern in the same way as it is used in the S NT translation idiom, i.e.

conjunctive is used instead of e+infinitive only when the Nqi–construction occurs in the

sentence.

3. The function of the conjunctive as ”post-conjunctional and post-adverbial „coupling”

clause form”288 after mhpote, mhpws, xwste, xinas in our text corpus is still a little

perplexing. Shisha-Halevy suggests that it has the function of the old prospective „that”-

form sDm.w=f and the so-called prospective sDm=f,289 but it is not clear where the

288 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: 313.289 SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: 313.

94

conjunctive gets this function from. In this usage it really looks like a general clause-

form, ’invented’ to be used in clauses with Greek conjunctions, especially in M and B.

This examination shows that there is Greek syntactic influence on the level of

patterns/surface structures on the Coptic language, and that translated and original idioms

are not the same in this respect. With all these Greek-influenced patterns in the Coptic

sentence, I agree with Lüddeckens: ”Die griechische Lehn-oder Fremdwörter und auch

syntaktische Beeinflussungen durch das Griechische haben jedoch nichts an dem

Charakter des Koptischen als ägyptischer Sprache geändert.”290

290 LÜDDECKENS, 1980: 260.

95

APPENDIX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS OF GRAMMATIC TERMS

affirm affirmative

caus inf causative infinitive

conj conjunctive

fut 2 second future

fut 3 third future

inf infinitive

imp imperative

L Lycopolitan dialect

M Middle-Egyptian dialect

neg negative

part participle

S Sahidic dialect

subj subjunctive

96

1.1 Final Clauses

Translated Coptic LiteratureGospel of Matthew

Conjunctions: i(/na o(/pwj mh/pote ; jekas je mhpote mhpws xinas

1,22 i(/na – subj M: je – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

2,2 inf after h)/lqomen M: e+infS: e+inf

2,8 o(/pwj – subj M: jekes – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

2,13 tou= inf M: e +infS: e +inf

3,13 tou= inf M: e +infS: e +caus inf

2,15 i(/na – subj M: je – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

2,23 o(/pwj – subj M: jekes – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

4, 1 inf M: e +infS: e +caus inf

4,6 mh/pote – subj M: mhpote – conjS: mhpote – conj

4,14 i(/na – subj M: jekes – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

5,16 o(/pwj – subj M: jekes – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

5, 17 inf after h)=lqon M: e +infS: e +inf

5, 17 inf after h)=lqon M: e +infS: e +inf

97

5,25 mh/pote – subj M: mhpote – conjS: mhpote – conj

5, 28 proÜj to/ + inf M: conjS: e +inf

5,45 o(/pwj – subj M: jekes – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

6, 1 proÜj to/ + inf M: e+def article + caus infS: jekas fut 3

6,2 o(/pwj – subj M: jekes – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

6,4 o(/pwj – subj M: jekes – fut 3

S: jekas – fut 3

6,5 o(/pwj – subj M: jekes – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

6,16 o(/pwj – subj M: je – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

6,18 o(/pwj mh/ – subj M: jekes – neg.fut 3S: jekas – neg.fut 3

7,1 i(/na mh/ – subj M: je – neg. fut 3S: jekas – neg.fut 3

7,6 mh/pote – fut.ind./subj M: mhpws – conjS: mhpote – conj

8,17 o(/pwj – subj M : je – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

8, 29 inf after h)=lqej M: e+infS: e+inf

9,6 i(/na – subj M: jekes – Fut 3S: jekas – Fut 3

9, 13 inf after h)=lqon M: e+infS: e+inf

10, 34 inf after h)=lqon M: e+inf

98

S: e+inf

10, 34 inf after h)=lqon M: e+infS: e+inf

10, 35 inf after h)=lqon M: e+infS: e+inf

11, 1 tou= inf after mete/bh M: circ praesS: e+infvariant in Perez: circ praes

11, 7 inf after e)ch/lqate M: e+infS: e+inf

11, 8 inf after e)ch/lqate M: e+infS: e+inf

11, 9 inf after e)ch/lqate M: e+infS: e+inf

12, 10 i(/na – subj M: jekes fut3S: jekas fut3

12,17 i(/na – subj M: jekes – Fut 3S: jekas – Fut 3

12, 42 inf after h)=lqen M: e+infS: e+inf

13, 3 tou= inf after e)ch=lqen M: e+infS: e+inf

13,15 mh/pote – subj M: mhpws – conjS: mhpote – conj

13,29 mh/pote – subj M: mhpote – conjS: mhpote – conj

13, 30 proÜj to/ inf M: e+def article + caus infS: e+def article + inf

13,35 o(/pwj – subj M: jekes – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

14,15 i(/na – subj M: xinas –fut 3S: jekas –fut 3

99

14, 23 inf after a)ne/bh M: perf IS: e+infvariant in Perez perf 1

15,32 mh/pote – subj M: mhpws – conjS: mhpote – conj

16, 1 part impf after proselqo/ntej M: circ presS: circ pres

17,27 i(/na mh/ – subj M: jekes- neg.fut 3S: jekas – neg.fut 3

18,16 i(/na – subj M: jekes – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

19, 3 part impf after prosh=lqon M: circ presS: circ pres

19,13 i(/na – subj M: je – fut 3 (foll by Conj)S: jekas – fut 3 (foll by Conj)

19,16 i(/na – subj M : je – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

20, 19 ei)j to/ inf(3x) M: Üe+ def art+ caus inf (1x), then conj3x

S: e+ inf (1x); conj 3x

20, 20 part impf after prosh=lqen M: circ presS: circ pres

20, 28 inf (3x) after h)=lqen M: e+caus inf(1x); e+inf (2x)S: e+caus inf (1x); e+inf (2x)

21,4 i(/na – subj M: je – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

22, 3 inf M: e+infS: e+inf

22, 35 part impf M: circ presS: circ pres

22,11 inf after ei)selqw/n M: e+infS: e+inf

100

23,5 proÜj toÜ inf M: e + def art + caus infS: jekas – Fut 3

23, 15 inf after peria/gete M: limitativ ¥ante

S: e+inf

23,26 i(/na – subj M: fut conj Ntare-S:jekas – fut 3

24, 1 inf after prosh=lqon M: perf IS: e+inf

24, 45 tou= inf M : e+caus infS : e+inf

25, 9 mh/pote subj M : mhpws conj

S: mhpote conj

25, 10 inf after a)perxome/nwn M: e+infS: e+inf

26,2 ei)j toÜ inf M : e+infS : e+caus inf

26, 5 i(/na mh/ subj M : je neg fut3S : jekas neg fut3

26,12 proÜj toÜ inf M: e+ nounS: e + def art + inf

26,16 i(/na – subj M : je- fut 3S : jekas – fut 3

26,41 i(/na mh/ – subj M : je – neg.fut 3S : jekas neg.fut 3

26,55 inf after e)ch/lqate M : e+infS: e+inf

26,56 i(/na – subj M: jekes – fut 3S: jekas fut 3

26,58 inf after ei)selqw/n M: limitativ ¥ante

S: e+inf

26,59 o(/pwj – subj M: jekes – fut 3

101

S: jekas – fut 3

27,26 i(/na – subj M: xinas – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

27,31 ei)j toÜ inf M: e+infS: e+inf

27, 49 fut part M: conj

after e)/rxetai S: e+inf

27,64 mh/pote subj M: mhpws – conjS: mhpote – conj

28,1 inf after h)=lqen M: e+infS: e+inf

28,8 inf after e)/dramon M: xinas+ fut 3S: e+inf

Gospel of John

Conjunctions: i(/na o(/pwj ; jekas je

1,7 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3

1,7 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3

1,8 i(/na – subj S : jekas – fut 3

1,19 i(/na – subj S : jekas – fut 3

1,22 i(/na – subj S : jekas – fut 3

1,31 i(/na – subj S : jekas – fut 3

1, 31 part impf after h)=lqon S : circ pres

1,33 inf S : e+inf

3,15 i(/na – subj S : jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 2

3,16 i(/na mh/ – subj (foll by affirm subj) S : jekas – neg.fut 3 (foll by affirm fut 3)L : jekase – neg.fut 3 (foll by affirm fut 2)

3,17 i(/na – subj S: je – fut 3L: fut conj

102

3,17 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 2

3,20 i(/na mh/ – subj S : jekas – neg.fut 3L : je – neg.fut 3

3,21 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 3

4,7 inf after e)/rxetai S : e+infL : a+inf

4,8 i(/na – subj S: e +inf

after a)pelhlu/qeisan L: a+caus infident su

4,15 i(/na mh/ – subj S: jekas – neg.fut 3L: jekase – neg.fut 3

4,15 inf after die/rxwmai S: e+infL: a+inf

4,36 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 3

4, 38 inf S : e+infL : a+inf

5,14 i(/na mh/ – subj S: jekas – neg.fut 3L: jekase – neg.fut 3

5,20 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

5,23 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 2

5,34 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 2L: jekase – fut 3

5,36 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 2

5,40 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

103

6,5 i(/na – subj S : je – fut 2L : je – fut 2

6,6 part impf S : circ presL : circ pres

6,12 i(/na mh/ – subj S : jekas – neg.fut 3L : jekase – neg.fut 3

6,15 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 2

6,28 i(/na – subj S : jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 3

6,30 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

6,38 i(/na – subj after katabe/bhka S: e+caus infident su L: a – inf

6,50 i(/na – subj after katabai/nwn S: jekas neg.fut 3 (cond interposed inbetween)

(foll by mh/ subj) L : jekase – fut 3 (foll by a neg conj)diff su

7,3 i(/na – subj/fut ind S : jekas –fut 3L : je – fut 2

7, 23 i(/na mh/ – subj S: je neg.fut3L: missing pages in Ms

7,32 i(/na – subj S : jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 3

8,59 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: je – fut 2

9,3 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

9, 36 i(/na – subj S : je – fut 3L: fut conj

9, 39 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

104

10,10 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

10,10 i(/na +subj after h)=lqon S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

diff su

10,17 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 2

10,31 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

10, 38 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 3

11,4 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3

L : jekase – fut 2

11,11 i(/na – subj after poreu/omai S: jekas – fut 3ident su L: jekase – fut 3

11,16 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

11,19 i(/na – subj after e)lhlu/qeisan S: jekas – fut 3ident su L : jekase – fut 3

11,31 i(/na – subj after u(pa/gei S: je – fut 3ident su L: a + inf

11,42 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 3

11,52 i(/na – subj S : jekas – fut 3L : jekase – Conj (interposed object)

11,55 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

11,57 o(/pwj – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 2

12,7 i(/na – subj S : je – fut 3L : je – fut 3

12,9 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3

105

L : jekase – fut 3

12,20 i(/na – subj after a)nabaino/ntwn S: e + infident su L: a + inf

12, 33 part impf S: circ presL: circ pres

12, 35 i(/na mh/ – subj S: je – neg.fut 3L: je – neg.fut 3

12, 36 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

12, 38 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

12,40 Isaiah-quotation

i(/na mh/ – subj S: jekas – neg.fut 3L: jekase – neg.fut 3

12,42 i(/na mh/ – subj S: jekas – neg.fut 3L: jekase – neg.fut 3

12,46 i(/na mh/ – subj S: jekas – neg.fut 3L: jekase – neg.fut 3

12,47 i(/na – subj after h)=lqon S: je – fut 3ident su L: a+ inf

12, 47 i(/na – subj after h)=lqon S: jekas – fut 3ident su L: missing in Ms

13,15 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : verse 15 is omitted

13,18 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 2

13,19 i(/na – subj S : jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 3

13, 24 inf S: e+infL: a+inf

14,2 inf after poreu/omai S: e+infL: a+inf

106

14,3 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : je – fut 3

14,13 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 2

14,16 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

14,29 i(/na – subj S:jekas + fut3L:jekase + fut 3

14,31 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : je – fut 2

15,2 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3

L: jekase – fut 3

15,11 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: part of verses 11 and 12 is omitted in Ms

15, 16 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 2L : jekase – fut 3

15,25 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

16,1 i(/na mh/ – subj S: jekas – neg.fut 3L: jekase – neg.fut 3

16,4 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 3

16,24 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3

L: jekase – fut 2

16,33 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 2L : jekase – fut 3

17,1 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 2

17,11 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: the last clause of verse 11 is omitted

17,12 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3

107

L : je – fut 2

17,13 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

17,19 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 2

17,21 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

17,21 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

17,21 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: je – fut 2

17, 22 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: most of verse 22 is missing

17,23 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: verse 23 is missing

17,26 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 3

18,9 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3(main clause elliptic) L: jekase – fut 3

18,28 i(/na mh/ – subj (foll by subj) S: jekas – neg.fut 3; fut 3L : jekase – neg.fut 3; fut 2

18,32 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

18, 32 part impf S: circ presL:circ pres

18,36 i(/na mh/ – subj S: jekas – neg.fut 3L: jekase – neg.fut 3

18,37 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L : jekase – fut 2

19,4 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 2L: jekase – fut 3

108

19,16 i(/na – subj S: e+caus infL: a+caus inf

19,24 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 2

19,28 i(/na – subj S: je – fut 3L: that clause is not present here

19, 31 i(/na mh/ – subj S: je – neg.fut 3L: je – neg.fut 3

19,35 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 3

19,36 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – fut 2

20,31 i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 3

20, 31 i(/na - subj S: jekas – fut 2

21, 3 inf after u(pa/gw S: e +inf

21, 19 part impf S: circ pres

Letter to the Romans

1, 11 i(/na+subj S: jekas +fut3

1,11 ei)j to/+inf S: e+inf

1,12 inf S: e+caus inf

1,13 i(/na+subj S: jekas +fut3

1,24 tou= inf S: e+caus inf

3,4 Ps 51, 6-quotation

o(/pwj+subj S: jekas +fut3

3, 8 i(/na+subj S: je +fut3

3, 19 i(/na+subj S: jekas +fut2

3,26 ei)j to/+inf S: e+caus inf

109

4, 11 ei)j to/+inf S: e +caus inf

4, 11 ei)j to/+inf S: e +caus inf

4,16 ei)j to/+inf S: jekas +fut3

5, 20 i(/na+ subj S: jekas +fut3

5,21 i(/na+ subj S: jekas +fut3

6, 1 i(/na+ subj S: je +fut3

6, 4 i(/na+ subj S: jekas +conj

6,6 i(/na+ subj S: jekas +fut3

6,6 tou= inf S: e+caus inf

6,12 ei)j to/+inf S: e+caus inf

7,4 ei)j to/+inf S: e+caus inf

7,4 i(/na+subj S: je+fut 3

7,13 i(/na+subj S: jekas+fut 3

7, 13 i(/na+subj S: jekas+fut 3

8,4 i(/na+subj S: je+fut 3

8,17 i(/na+subj S: je+fut 3

8,29 ei)j to/+inf S: e+caus inf

9,11 i(/na+subj S: jekas+fut 3

9,17 Ex 9,16-quotation

o(/pwj+subj S: je+fut 3

9,17 Ex 9,16-quotation

o(/pwj+subj S: je+fut 3

9,23 i(/na+subj S: je+fut 3

10,6 inf after a)nabh/setai S: e+inf

110

10,7 inf after katabh/setai S: e+inf

11,11 ei)j to/+inf S: e + def art+ noun

11,19 i(/na+subj S: jekas+fut 3

11,31 i(/na+subj S: jekas+fut 3

11,32 i(/na+subj S: jekas+fut 3

12,2 ei)j to/+inf S: e+caus inf

[12,15 – 13,7 Horner is missings]

14,9 i(/na+subj S: je+fut 3

15,6 i(/na+subj S: jekas+fut 3

[15,7-15,14 missing in Horner]

15, 15 w(j + part impf S: xws + circ pres

15,16 ei)j to/ inf S: e +caus inf

15,16 i(/na+subj S: jekas+fut 3

16,2 i(/na+subj S: je+fut 3

Original Coptic Literature:Pachom, Instructions Concerning a Spiteful Monk:

2,5 je +fut3

3, 9 je +fut2 Prov. 6, 4-5-quotation

3,23 mhpote + conj interposition

4, 6 mhpote + conj

5,4 je +fut3

5,6 je + neg.fut3

5, 24 jekas +fut2

6,8 je + neg.fut3

6, 26 e + neg inf

8, 21-22 je +fut3

9,4 e +caus inf

111

11,10-11 je + neg.fut3

11, 22 mhpote + conj

12, 30-31 jekas +fut2

13,2 je +fut2

mhpote + conj

13, 21 e + caus inf Ps 100, 8-quotation although the first half ofthe sentence is replaced by that of 100, 3

13,24-25 je +fut3

15, 12-13 je +fut2

15, 22 je + neg.fut3 Lk 6,37 - quotation

16,27 je + neg.fut3

16,31-32 je + neg.fut3

17,19-20 je +fut2

17,25 je +fut3

18, 4-5 e +caus inf

18, 5-6 e +caus inf

18, 19 je +fut3

18,22 je + neg.fut3

19,10-11 je + neg.fut3

20,12-13 je +fut3

22,14 mhpote + conj

Excerpta27b, 11 e+caus inf

Passover

25,1 e +caus inf

25, 6-7 jekas +fut 2

25, 14-16 je +fut 3

25, 23-24 jekas +fut 2

Praecepta30, 22 e + inf after „get up” twoun

Praecepta et instituta35, 19 e+ caus inf

Shenute

112

Young 28171, 23 je +neg.fut 3 je Nnajexax – idiomatic, no main clause

Young 6-7

39a, 11 je + neg.fut 3

38b, 30 je+neg.fut 3

39b, 51-54 2x je +neg.fut 3 Mt 7, 1-quotation

39b, 33 je + fut 3

40a, 5-6 e +caus inf

42b, 32-33 e +caus inf

43b, 52 je +neg.fut 3

Elanskaya 1.1.b.707

85, 26a e+inf

86, 27a e+caus inf

Elanskaya I.1.b.716

91,6a-7a jekas +neg.fut3

92, 1a-3a jekas +neg.fut3

Elanskaya I.1.b.658

98, 1b e+caus inf

99, 12a e+caus inf

99, 5b-6b e+caus inf

Young, 21

128, 13-14 je +neg.fut3

129, 12-13 je +fut3

130, 2 jekas +fut2

132, 17 jekas +fut3

Ad phil

44, 11 e+ inf after ei

47, 23 je +neg.fut3

51, 21 e+caus inf

54, 9 e+caus inf after bwk ; Cant 6, 2-quotation

54, 25 e+caus inf after bwk ; Cant 6, 11-quotation

55, 13 e+caus inf after bwk ; Cant 7, 13-quotation

58, 18 jekas +fut2

61, 7 e+ caus inf

62, 16 e+ caus inf

113

62, 18 jekas +fut2

BLO

57, 19 e+ neg inf

57, 34 e+ neg caus inf

57, 52 je +fut3

57, 57 je +fut2

58, 5 je +fut3

58, 11 je +fut3

58, 18 e+ neg caus inf

65, 39 e+ caus inf

68, 1 e+ neg caus inf

69, 57 e+ caus inf

70, 18 e+ neg caus inf

70, 20-4 jekas +neg.fut3

73, 18 e+ neg caus inf

73, 35 e+ neg caus inf

74, 30 e+ neg caus inf

75, 17 e+ neg inf

75, 19 e+ neg caus inf

76, 55 e+ inf after nhu

78, 48 e+ caus inf

80, 28 e+ caus inf

81, 30 je +neg fut3

81, 53 e+ neg inf

82, 2 jekas + fut2

82, 15 jekas + fut3

82, 26 e+ neg inf

82, 28 je +neg.fut3

82, 42 jekas +fut2

84, 21 e+ caus inf

87, 22 e+ caus inf

87, 38-9 jekas +fut3

88, 49-51 jekas +fut2

90, 21 e+ caus inf

114

90, 9-10 je +neg.fut3

93, 28 jekas +fut2

94, 39 e+ caus inf

Monast disc

116, 10 e+ neg inf

116, 13 e+ caus inf

117, 6 e+ caus inf

117, 23 e+ caus inf

119, 3 e+ caus inf

119, 9 je +neg.fut3

119, 20 jekas +fut2

119, 29 e+ caus inf

120, 3 e+ inf

120, 3 e+ neg caus inf

120, 8 jekas +fut3

121, 14 e+caus inf

122, 3 jekas +fut3

122, 9 jekas +fut2

126, 6 e+caus inf

129, 22 e+caus inf

131, 2 e+caus inf

131, 4 e+caus inf

132, 3 e+caus inf

132, 22 e+caus inf

135, 28 jekas +fut3

139, 10 je +fut3

140, 18 jekas +fut3

140, 30 je +fut3

143, 14 jekas +fut3

144, 18 e+caus inf

144, 21 e+caus inf

146, 21 jekas +neg.fut3

149, 7 e+caus inf

150, 1 e+caus inf

115

HorsieseInstruction 1

67, 6 e + neg inf Ps 33, 13-16-quotation

69, 27 jekas + fut3

69, 30 je +fut 2 foll by conj

Instruction 3

70, 31-32 je +fut 3 Prov 3, 9-10-quotation; foll by conj

71, 33 jekas + fut3

Instruction 4

72, 2 e + inf

72, 8 e + caus inf

72, 9 e + caus inf

72, 12 e + caus inf

72, 12-13 e + caus inf

72, 13 e + caus inf

72, 29-30 e + neg caus inf

Instruction 5

73, 14 jekas + fut3

73, 16 e + caus inf

73, 19 e + caus inf

74, 3 jekas + fut2

74, 5 jekas + fut2

74, 7 jekas + fut3 Heb 2, 14-quotation

74, 9 je + neg.fut3

Instruction 6

74, 29 e + caus inf

75, 4 je + fut3

75, 8 e + caus inf

75, 14-15 jekas + fut2 then foll by conj

Instruction 7

76, 2-3 e + caus inf

76, 13 je + neg.fut3

77, 24 jekas + neg.fut3

116

78, 33 e + inf after nhu

78, 34-79, 1 3x e + inf

79, 16 e + neg inf

79, 21 je + fut2

Regulations

83, 11 je + neg.fut3

83, 21 jekas + fut3 foll by conj

84, 16 e+inf

84, 25 e+caus inf

86, 28 e + inf after twoun

86, 29 e + inf after twoun

86, 32 e + caus inf

86, 33 jekas + fut3

87, 1 e + inf after twoun

87, 5 e + caus inf

87, 8 e + caus inf

88, 9 jekas + fut3

88, 25 e + neg caus inf

88, 28 e + neg caus inf

88, 29 e + inf

88, 30 je + fut3

88, 30-31 e + caus inf

89, 3-4 jekas + fut2

89, 23 jekas + fut3

89, 28-29 jekas + fut3

90, 5 jekas + fut2

90, 15 jekas + fut3

91, 14 e+ caus inf

91, 23 jekas + neg fut3

91, 32 jekas + fut3

92, 2 jekas + fut3 foll by a conj

92, 8 je + neg fut3

92, 29 jekas + neg fut3

117

93, 12-3 jekas + fut3 foll by a conj

93, 27 e + inf

95, 5 je + neg fut3 foll by a conj

95, 7 e + neg inf

95, 14 e+caus inf

96, 34 jekas + neg fut3 foll by a conj

98, 23 e + neg inf

99, 10 je + neg fut3

99, 15 je + neg fut3

Letters

63, 27 mhpote + conj

64, 4 jekas + fut3 Rm 12, 2 - quotation

64, 5 je + fut3

64, 6-7 e + caus inf

64, 17 je + fut3 Ex 20, 12- quotation

64, 29 jekas + fut3

64, 30 jekas + fut3

65, 16 jekas + fut3

65, 19 e + inf Eccl 12, 13-14-quotation

Theodore

Instruction 3

40, 30 e+neg caus inf

41, 20-22 jekas + conj with interposed conditional

42, 3 e+caus inf

43, 31-32 jekas +fut 2 foll by conj

45, 6 e+inf

45, 10-11 je +fut2

45, 31 e+caus inf

46, 3 e+caus inf

46, 4 mhpote+conj

46, 33 e+inf

47, 4 e+caus inf

118

47, 20 je +neg fut3

47, 21 je +neg fut3

49,7 je +fut3 2 Cor 12, 7 quotation

49, 16 je +neg fut3

50, 7 e+caus inf

50, 14 jekas + fut3

52, 24, 27, 29 e+caus inf (3x)

52, 31 e+caus inf

53, 6 e+neg inf

53, 8 e+caus inf

54, 1 e+neg inf

54, 4-5 je + neg fut3

57, 1 e+caus inf

58, 13 e+caus inf

58, 15-16 e+caus inf (2x)

58, 21 mhpote+ conj

59, 13 mhpote + conj

119

1.2 Object clauses after verbs of exhorting

Gospel of Matthew

Constructions: i(/na/o(/pwj + clauses; infinitive constructionsje/jekas/ xinas clauses; inf constr; conjunctive; conditional

Object:

4,3 ei)pe/ - i(/na subj M: je - fut 3S: jekas - fut 3

8, 18 inf after e)ke/leusen M: e + caus infS: e +inf

8,34 pareka/lesan – o(/pwj subj M: je – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

9,38 deh/qhte – o(/pwj subj M: je – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

12,16 e)peti/mhsen – i(/na mh/ subj M: xinas – neg.fut 3S: jekas – neg.fut 3

14,9 inf after e)ke/leusen M: e+infS: e+inf

14,19 inf after keleu/saj M: e+caus infS: e+caus inf

14, 22 2x inf after h)na/gkasen M: e+caus inf (foll by conj)S: 2x e+inf

14, 28 inf after ke/leuson M: conjS: e+caus inf

14,36 pareka/loun – i(/na subj M: xinas – conjS: jekas – fut 3

15,35 inf after paraggei/laj M: e+caus infS: e+caus inf

16,1 inf after e)phrw/thsan M: e+caus infS: e+inf

16,20 diestei/lato – i(/na subj M: je – neg.fut 3S: jekas – neg.fut 3

120

18,25 2x inf after e)ke/leusen M: e+inf; foll by limitativ ¥ante

S: e+caus inf; foll by conj

19,7 2x inf after e)netei/lato M: 2x e+infS: 2x e+inf

20,21 ei)pe/ – i(/na subj M: xinas - conj‘tell sy to’ S: jekas – fut 3

20,31 e)peti/mhsen – i(/na subj M: je – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

24,20 proseu/xesqe – i(/na mh/ subj M: je - neg. fut 3S: jekas – neg.fut 3

26,4 sunebouleu/santo – i(/na subj M: jekes – fut 3

S: jekas – fut 3

26,63 e)corki/zw se ... i(/na – subj M: xinas – conjS: jekas – fut 3

27,20 e)/peisan – i(/na subj M: xinas – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

27,32 h)gga/reusan – i(/na subj M: je – fut 3S: jekas – fut 3

27,58 inf after e)ke/leusen M: e+infS: e+caus inf

27, 64 inf after ke/leuson M: optS: e+caus inf

28,10 a)paggei/late – i(/na subj M: xinas – fut 3S: jekas – fut 2 in Perez/ fut3 in Horner

Gospel of John

4,40 inf after h)rw/twn S: e+infL: e+caus inf

4,47 h)rw/ta i(/na —subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 3

11,53 e)bouleu/santo i(/na – subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 2

121

12,10 e)bouleu/santo i(/na – subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 3

13,2 beblhko/toj ei)j thÜn kardi/an – i(/na subjS: jekas - fut 3L: je - fut 3

15, 16 e)/qhka u(ma=j i(/na – subj (3x) S: jekas – fut 2 in Horner;fut3 in Quecke; foll by 2 conjsL: jekase – fut 3 foll by conj; jekase–fut 2

15,17 e)nte/llomai i(/na – subj S: jekas - fut 3L: a + inf

17,4 de/dwka/j moi i(/na – subj S: e+caus infL: a+caus inf

Note: can be interpreted as ’give’+ final; or as ’command’+object!

17,15 e)rwtw= i(/na – subj S: je - fut 3L: je - fut 3

17, 15 (e)rwtw=) i(/na – subj S : jekas - fut 3L : jekase - fut 3

19,31 h)rw/thsan .. i(/na – subj (2x) S: je – neg fut 3 (foll by jekas - fut 3)L:jekase – neg fut 3 (foll by jekase - fut

3)

19,38 h)rw/thsen .. i(/na – subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 3

Romans

1, 10 inf after deo/menoj S: e+inf

12,1 inf after parakalw= S: e+inf

16,17 inf after parakalw= S: e+ caus inf

Original literature:Pachom,Instructions Concerning a Spiteful Monk

2, 27 e+ inf after xwn

8, 28 e+caus inf after xwn

15, 30 e+caus inf after anagkaze

122

18, 14-15 je + fut3 after xwn

22, 8 e+neg inf after xwn

Excerpta

29b, 29-29,a16

e+neg caus inf after parakalei

Shenute,

Young 28

169, 37-38 e+caus inf after ¥lhl

Young 5

34a, 27 e+caus inf after ¥lL

34b, 52-55 e+caus inf after anagkaze as transitive verb: ’force me’

Young 6-7

38b, 39-40 e+caus inf after protrepe

43a, 17-22 e+caus inf after jw ’tell sy to’

Young, 21

130, 19-21 e+neg caus inf after ¥lhl

then 3 more e+caus infs belonging to the same verb

Ad phil

45, 20 e+caus inf after ¥lhl

59, 2 jekas + fut3 after sops - Mt 9, 38 quotation (see above)

61, 12 e+caus inf after paraggeile

Monast disc

119, 7 e+2x neg inf after epitima

134, 9 e+neg caus inf after !epibouleue

139, 14 e+caus inf after sopsp

143, 26 e+caus inf after +sbw

144, 4 e+caus inf after anagkaze

144, 6 e+caus inf after the above (the first caus inf is followed by two

conjunctives, then an h disjuncts and then comes the second caus inf)

144, 7 e+caus inf after clibe

149, 26 e+caus inf after peice

123

Theodore’s Instruction 3

44, 7 e+caus inf after anagkaze

46, 15 e+caus inf after anagkaze

47, 34 e+caus inf after sopS

48, 7-8 e+caus inf after parakalei

50, 33- e+caus inf (5x; also neg) after sopS

52, 17 e+inf after epibouleue

53, 11 e+caus inf after ouexsaxne

53, 21 e+neg caus inf after ¥lhl

56, 6 e+neg inf after parakalei

59, 1-2 e+caus inf after peice

Horsiese,

Instruction 5

73, 21-22 e + caus inf after sumane

Instr 6

75, 24-28 e + caus inf after etei

e + caus inf after etei

Instr 7

76, 31 e + caus inf after wrk

78, 1-2 e + caus inf after sops (foll by conj)

Regulations

86, 4-5 e + caus inf after sops

97, 17-19 e + caus inf (2x) after twbX (foll by conj)

Letters

65, 21 e + caus inf after ¥lhl

124

1.3 Subject clause/inf

Matthew

3, 15 inf after pre/pon e)stiÜn M: ete¥¥h e +infS: ete¥¥e e +inf

5,29 sumfe/rei – i(/na subj Μ: conjS: jekas – fut 3

5,30 sumfe/rei – i(/na subj Μ: conjS: jekas – fut 3

10,25 a)rkato/n (e)stin) i(/na subj M: condS: je – fut 3

12,2 inf after ou)k e)/cestin M: e+infS: e+inf

12,10 inf after e)/cestin M: e+infS: e+inf

12,12 inf after e)/cestin M: e+infS: e+inf

14,4 inf after ou)k e)/cestin M: e+infS: e+inf

15,26 inf (2x) after ou)k e)/stin kalo/n M: 1x plain inf, 1x e+infS: e+inf (2x)

17,4 kalo/n e)/stin h(ma=j M: conjS: e+caus inf

18,6 sumfe/rei – i(/na subj M: conjS: jekas – fut 3

18,7 inf after a)na/gkh M: conjS: e+caus inf

18,8 inf (2x) after kalo/n soi e)stin M: conj (2x)S: e+inf; foll by conj

18,9 inf after kalo/n soi e)stin M: conj (2x)S: e+inf; foll by conj

125

18,14 ou)k e)/stin qe/lhma – i(/na subj M: e+caus infS: jekas – fut 3

19,3 inf after e)/cestin M: e+caus infS: e+inf

19,10 inf after ou) sumfe/rei M: e+infS: e+inf

20,15 inf after ou)k e)/cestin M: e+infS: e+inf

22,17 inf after e)/cestin M: e+infS: e+inf

27,6 inf after ou)k e)/cestin M: e+infS: e+inf

27,15 inf after ei)w/qei M: e+infS: there is no ’it was a traditon’

John

4,34 e)moÜn brw=ma/ e)stin i(/na – subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 2

5,10 inf after ou)k e)/cesti/n soi S: e+infL: a+inf

6,29 tou=to/ e)stin toÜ e)/rgon...i(/na subj S: je - fut 3L: jekase - fut 2

6,39 tou=to/ e)stin toÜ qe/lhma...i(/na subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 3

6,40 tou=to/ e)stin toÜ qe/lhma...i(/na subj S: jekas - fut 3

L: jekase - fut 3

11,50 sumfe/rei – i(/na subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 2

13, 14 o)fei/lw + inf S: ¥¥e + e infL: s¥e + a inf

15,12 au(/th e)stiÜn h( e)ntolh/ .. i(/na – subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 3

16,7 sumfe/rei i(/na – subj S: jekas - fut 3

126

L: jekase - fut 2

17,3 au(/th e)stiÜn h( ai)w/nioj zwhÜ i(/na – subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 2

18,14 inf after sumfe/rei S : e+caus infL : e+caus inf

18,31 inf after ou)k e)/cestin S : e+infL: a+inf

18,39 sunh/qeia .. i(/na – subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 2

19, 7 o)fei/lei + inf S: ¥¥e +e infL: s¥e + e+caus inf

Romans

14,21 neg inf (2x) after kalo/n (e)sti/n) S: e +neg inf (2x)

Pachom,

Spiteful

5, 21 e + inf after ¥¥e Hebr 11, 6

5, 32 circ pres after nanous

6,1 e+caus inf cont the previous with Nxouo eros

10, 24 e+ caus inf after xapS

23, 19 e+ caus inf after oute teyria

Excerpta

29b,10 – 30b,3:

cond after Noudikaion an pe

Praecepta et instituta

33, 33 e + caus inf after ete¥¥e

33, 34 e+inf after ete¥¥e

34, 1 e+ neg inf after ete¥¥e

34, 2 e+ neg inf after ete¥¥e

34, 4 e+ inf after ete¥¥e

34, 6 e+ inf after ete¥¥e

127

34, 7 e+ inf after ete¥¥e

Shenoute

Young 5

33a, 2-4 e +inf after oudikaiosunh te

Young 21

126, 48 e+caus inf after xapS gar pe

126, 12-13 e+ inf after ete¥¥e

128, 40 e+caus inf after xapS

131, 25-28 e +caus inf after ouagacon an pe (1 more e+inf follows)

131, 37-132,39 e +caus inf after tanagkh te auw teyreia te

Elanskaya I.1.b. 716

91, 10a-11a e+caus inf after wveleia an

91, 19a-21a e+caus inf after pet¥¥e

91, 26a e+neg inf after (pet¥¥e) : elliptic, pet¥¥e is not there (3

more e+infs follow)

92, 35a-1b e+caus inf after (neg) pet¥¥e (1 more e+inf follows)

Ad phil

45, 24-5 e+caus inf after mpefouw¥ anpe

59, 26 e+caus inf after xapS

59, 30 je + fut 3 after Sxw Mt 10, 25 quotation

Monast disc

117, 15 e+ inf after ¥¥e

118, 25 e+ inf after ¥¥e

118, 27-8 e+ caus inf after ¥¥e

120, 4 e+ inf after ¥¥e

122, 11 e+ caus inf after pete¥¥e pe

131, 8 e+caus inf after mpaouw¥ anpe

144, 28 e+caus inf after xw

128

145, 13 e+caus inf after anagkh te

148, 21 e+caus inf after pete¥¥e pe

150, 18 e+caus inf after pete¥¥e pe

BLO

64, 21-2 e+ inf after ete¥¥e

64, 26-7 e+ inf after ete¥¥e

66, 40 e+ inf after nSprepei an

66, 56-8 e+ inf after pete¥¥e an pe

77, 5 e+ inf after ¥¥e

77, 48 e+ inf after ouanagkaion pe

88, 17-25 e+ neg caus inf (2x) after ouanagkaion pe

88, 35-7 e+caus inf after ouanagkaion pe

Theodore, Instruction

43, 15 e+caus inf after xapS

52, 23 e + inf after xhu

53, 26 e+caus inf after pete¥¥e pe

59, 12 e+caus inf after pete¥¥e pe

Horsiese, Instruction

68, 6-7 e + caus inf after pete¥¥e

Horsiese, Instruction 3

71, 5 e + caus inf after ou¥ou¥ou pe

Horsiese, Instruction 4

72, 19-20 e + caus inf after ounoq Mmakarios pe pai

72, 25-27 e + caus inf: after teyria (…) pe

Horsiese, Instr 7

76, 3 e + inf (2x) after nanous

129

Regulations

83, 18-19 e + caus inf after xaps

89, 38 e + neg caus inf after ¥¥e

90, 11 e + 3 x neg inf after ¥¥e

91, 19 e + inf after ¥¥e

91, 22 e + inf after ¥¥e

92, 20 e + inf after ¥¥e

93, 2 e + caus inf after ¥¥e

96, 31 e + caus inf after e¥¥e

97, 5 e + caus inf after ete¥¥e

98, 14 e + inf after ete¥¥e

98, 14 e + inf after ete¥¥e

98, 15 e + inf after tanagkh te

98, 22 e + caus inf after ¥¥e

Letters

65, 27 e + caus inf after pete¥¥e pe

130

1.4 Complementary and Epexegetic Clauses introduced by i(/na / Infinitive

Constructions

Matthew

3,11 inf after ei)miÜ i(kanoÜj M: e+infS: n+ inf

3, 14 inf after xrei/an e)/xw M: n+ infS: n+ inf

8,8 i(/na subj after ei)miÜ i(kanoÜj M: e+caus infS: jekas fut 3

9, 6 inf after e)cousi/an e)/xei M: e+ infS: e+ inf

10,1 w(/ste – inf after e)/dwken e)cousi/an M: xwste e - inf.S: e - inf

12, 14 o(/pwj subj after sumbou/lion e)/labon M: xinas conjS: jekas fut3

14,16 inf after ou) xrei/an e)/xousin M: e+caus infS: e+caus inf

22,15 o(/pwj subj after sumbou/lion e)/labon M: jekes – fut 3S:jekas – fut 3

27,1 w(/ste – inf after sumbou/lion e)/labon M: xwste e – infS: xwste e – inf

John

1,12 inf after e)/dwken au)toi=j e)cousi/anS: e+caus infL: -

1,27 i(/na + subj after ou)k ei)miÜ a)/cioj S: e+inf

2,25 i(/na + subj after ou) xrei/an ei)=xen S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 2

5,7 i(/na + subj S: jekas – fut 3L: jekase – conj (interposition)

5,27 inf after e)cousi/an e)/dwken S: e+caus inf

131

L: e+caus inf

6,7 i(/na + subj after ou)k a)rkou=sin S : jekas – fut 3L : je – fut 3

8,56 i(/na + subj after h)gallia/sato S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 3

10, 18 inf after e)cousi/an e)/xw S: e+infL: a+inf

10, 18 inf after e)cousi/an e)/xw S: e+infL: a+inf

11,57 i(/na + subj after dedw/keisan .. e)ntolaÜj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 3

12,23 i(/na + subj after e)lh/luqen h( w(/ra S: jekas +fut3L: jekase +fut3

13,1 i(/na + subj after h)=lqen h( w(/ra S: je – fut3L: je – fut3

13,10 inf after e)/xei xrei/an S: e+infL: conj

13,34 i(/na + subj after e)ntolhÜn .. di/dwmi S: jekas - fut 3L: jekas - fut 3

15,8 i(/na + subj after e)n tou/tw? e)doca/sqh S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 3

15,13 i(/na + subj after mei/zona tau/thj a)ga/phn e)/xeiS: jekas + fut 3L: jekase +fut3

16, 2 e)/rxetai w(/ra i(/na – subj S: xote – fut 2L: conj

16,30 ou) xrei/an e)/xeij i(/na – subj S: jekas - fut 3L: jekase - fut 2

16,32 e)/rxetai w(/ra i(/na – subj S: jekas – fut 2 (in Quecke fut 3)L: jekase – fut 2

17,2 e)/dwkaj au)tw?= e)cousi/an … i(/na ... subjS: jekas +fut3

132

L: jekase +fut3

19,10 inf after e)cousi/an e)/xw S: n+infL: a+inf

19,10 inf after e)cousi/an e)/xw S: n+infL: n+inf

Romans9,21 inf after e)/xei e)cousi/an S: e+inf

11,8 tou= +inf e)/dwken (…) o)fqalmouÜj S: e+ inf:

13, 11 inf after w(/ra (e)sti/n) S: e+ inf:

Original LiteraturePachomSpiteful8, 19 e+caus inf after RpMp00¥a

11, 19-20 conj after pnau pe pai

11, 32 e+inf after sBtwt

17, 20 e+inf after +e3ousia Lk 10, 19

19, 3 e+inf after sBtwt

19, 31 e+ caus inf after peouoei¥ tenou pe pai

Shenute

Young, 21

129, 28 e+inf after sobte

132, 2 n+inf after Mp00¥a

129, 40 e+inf xenbal enau

Adversus Graecos

42, 6 e+inf after rw¥e

Ad phil

58, 20 e+inf after sobte

Monast disc

118, 5 e+caus inf after Mp¥a

133

119, 28 e+caus inf after rw¥e

128, 25 e+inf after mp¥a

142, 31 e+caus inf after rMp¥a

148, 5 n+inf after mp¥a

Theodore,

Instruction 3

41, 26 xwste+ e+caus inf after Mp¥a

44, 10-11 n +inf after emNce

44, 11-12 e +inf after emNce

47, 7-8 n +inf after R¥au

50, 21 e+inf after sbtwt

50, 31 e+caus inf after Mp¥a

52, 4 e+inf after sbtwt

Horsiese

Regulations

82, 16 e+caus inf after +so

85, 14-15 e+inf after mNtai parxhsia … ew¥

85, 20 n+inf after Mp¥a

91, 26 e+ inf after rw¥e

91, 27 e+ inf after rw¥e

92, 20-21 e+ inf after peouoei¥ ¥wpe

94, 24-5 e+ inf after ouNtan te3ousia e…

94, 25 e+ inf after ouNtan e3ousia e…

134

2. Clauses/Infinitives of Result

Gospel of Matthew

Conjunction: w(/ste (mostly); i(/na o(/pwj (less frequently)

8,24 w(/ste – inf. M: xwste – conjS: xwste e+caus inf

8,28 w(/ste – neg inf. M: xwste – conjS: xwste e+neg.caus inf

12,22 w(/ste – inf. M: xwste – conjS: xwste e+caus inf

13,2 w(/ste – inf. M: xwste – conjS: xwste e+caus inf

13,32 w(/ste – inf. M: xwste – conjS: xwste – conj

13,54 w(/ste – inf. M: xwste – conjS: xwste e+caus inf

15,30-31 w(/ste – inf. M: xwste – conjS: xwste e+caus inf -ß

15,33 w(/ste – inf. M: xwste e – inf.S: xwste e – inf.

23, 35 o(/pwj subj M: jekes fut3S: jekas fut3

24,24 w(/ste – inf. M: xwste – conjS: xwste e – inf

27,14 w(/ste – inf. M: xwste – conjS: xwste – conj

Gospel of John

3,16 w(/ste – ind S: xwste - pf 1L: xwste - pf 1

9,2 i(/na + subj S: jekas + fut 3L: jekase +fut 3

Romans

1,20 ei)j to/+inf

135

S: e+caus inf

7,6 w(/ste – inf. S: xwste – e+caus inf

11, 11 i(/na + subj S: je+fut 3

15,19 w(/ste – inf. S: xwste – e+caus inf

Original literature:

Pachom,

Spiteful

3, 12 xwste+ conj

9, 31-2 xwste+e caus inf

14,15 xwste+e caus inf

14,18-9 xwste+e inf 1Cor 13, 2-3 quotation

10,11 ¥ante

11, 20 ¥ante

12, 17 ¥ante

17,26-27 je + fut 3

Excerpta (Fragments from P.)

28a, 11 xwste + conj

29a, 3-4 xwste + e caus inf

29b, 24 xwste + conj

Shenute,

Young 6-7, Vienna K 930, 929, 927, 926

43a, 25 e+caus inf

Elanskaya 1.1.b.707

86, 3a-7a e+caus inf

86, 13-17a e+caus inf

BLO

72, 44 ¥ante

78, 31 ¥ante

136

83, 63 ¥ante

86, 11 xwste + e caus inf

Monast disc

128, 2 xwste + e caus inf

143, 4 xwste + e caus inf

143, 7 ¥ante

145, 3 e+caus inf

Horsiese,

Instruction 1

69, 25 ¥ante

Instruction 7

77, 5 jekas + fut 2

Regulations

87, 36 ¥ante

89,38-90,1 e+caus inf

90, 8 xwste + conj

90, 18 xwste + conj (interposition)

90, 24 e+caus inf

95, 9 e+caus inf

Theodore

Instruction 3

40, 24 xwste+ conj

40, 30 xwste+ conj

41, 20-22 xwste + e caus inf

46, 19 xwste + e caus inf

50, 1 e +caus inf

58, 7 xwste e +caus inf

58, 30 xwste+caus inf

137

BIBLIOGRAPHY

List of Abbreviations:

Acta Ant. Hung. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarium Hungaricae

Aeg Aegyptus

AnOr Analecta Orientalia

ANTF Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung

AristEpist Aristeae Epistula in: Pelletier, A., Lettre d’Aristée à Philocrate.

Texte critique, traduction, commentaire, index, Sources Chrétiennes

89 (1962) Paris

ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquites de l’Egypte

AS/EA Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques

BSAC Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie copte

CE Atiya, A. S. (ed.), The Coptic Encyclopedia, vols. 8, Macmillan

Publishing Company 1991

CP Polotsky, H. J., Collected Papers, Jerusalem 1971

CSCO Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium

IOS Israel Oriental Studies

JCoptS Journal of Coptic Studies

JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung

Kairo

OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta

SAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization

TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen

Literatur

ZÄS Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde

ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft

138

WORKS CONSULTED

BÖHLIG, 1953: BÖHLIG, A., ”Griechische Deponentien im Koptischen” Aeg

33, 91-96

BÖHLIG, 1955: BÖHLIG, A., ”Beiträge zur Form griechischer Wörter im

Koptischen” ZÄS 80, 90-97

BLOK, 1927: BLOK, H.P., „Die griechischen Lehnwörter im Koptischen“

ZÄS 62, 49-60.

BROCK, 1999: BROCK, S., From Ephrem to Romanos. Interactions between

Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity, Ashgate: Variorum

BROCK, 1979: BROCK, S., ”Aspects of Translation Technique in Antiquity”

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 20, 69-87, N.C.

BUNSEN, 1848-67: BUNSEN, C. C. J., Egypt’ Place in Universal History. An

Historical Investigation in Five Books, (transl. by Cottrell,

C. H. from Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte.

Geschichtliche Untersuchung in fünf Büchern, Hamburg:

Gotha 1845-67) London: Longmans (referred to in

POLOTSKY, 1987b)

BYNON, 1997: BYNON, TH., Történeti nyelvészet, (transl. by Gherdán, T. –

Számadó, T. from Historical Linguistics, Cambridge 1977),

Budapest

CLARYSSE, 1987: CLARYSSE, W., Greek Loan-words in Demotic, in:

Vleeming, S. P. (ed.), Aspects of Demotic Lexicography,

Leuven: Peeters

COWPER ET AL., 1858: COWPER, B. H. – HOFFMANN, A. G. – LONGFIELD, G., The

Principles of Syriac Grammar, Williams and Norgate

CRUM, 1930: CRUM, W.E., ”Ein neues Verbalpräfix im Koptischen” ZÄS

65, 124-127.

139

DEPUYDT, 1993: DEPUYDT, L., Conjunction, Contiguity, Contingency. On

Relationships Between Events in the Egyptian and Coptic

Verbal Systems, New York – Oxford: Oxford University

Press

DRESCHER, 1969 : DRESCHER, J., ”Graeco-Coptica”, Le Muséon 82, 85-100.

DRESCHER, 1970 : DRESCHER, J., ”Graeco-Coptica II”, Le Muséon 83, 139-

155.

ERMAN, 1894: ERMAN, A., Ägyptische Grammatik, Berlin (English

translation by Breasted, J.H., Egyptian Grammar. With

Table of Signs, Bibliography, Exercises for Reading and

Glossary, London / Edinburgh 1894)

FEDER, 2002: FEDER, F., Biblia Sahidica. Ieremias, Lamentationes

(Threni), Epistula Ieremiae at Baruch, TU 147, Walter de

Gruyter

FEDER, 2006: FEDER, F., „Die „Gräzität“ koptischer Bibelübersetzungen.

Wege der Übertragung heiliger Schriften“, Lingua Aegyptia

14, 301-310.

FÖLDVÁRY, 2008: FÖLDVÁRY, M. I., “Szent nyelv vagy szent nyelvek?“,

www.foldvary.eoldal.hu/cikkek

FÖRSTER, 2002: FÖRSTER, H., Wörterbuch der griechischen Wörter in den

koptischen dokumentarischen Texten. TU 148, Berlin – New

York

FUNK, 1984: FUNK, W-P., “Bemerkungen zur Sprachvergleich griechisch-

koptisch“ in: Nagel, P. (ed.), Graeco-Coptica, Halle, 147-

180

GABR, 1990: GABR, M. Y., Philological Studies on the Coptic Versions of

the Gospel of John, PhD Thesis at the University of

Liverpool

140

GASELEE, 1929-30 GASELEE, St., “Greek Words in Coptic” Byzantinische

Zeitschrift 30, 224-228.

GIRGIS, 1963-4: GIRGIS, V., ”Greek Loanwords in Coptic”, BSAC 17, 63-73.

GRODDEK ET AL., 2006: GRODDEK, D. – LINDKEN, T. – SCHAEFER, H., „mouliarhs

„Maultiertreiber“: ein bislang verkanntes griechisches

Lehnwort lateinischer Provenienz im Koptischen“ JCoptS 8

127-136

HASITZKA – SATZINGER,2004/2005: HASITZKA, M.R.M. – SATZINGER, H., ”Ein Index der

gräkokoptischen Wörter in nichtliterarischen Texten oder:

Was ist ein Wörterbuch?” Enchoria 29 (2004/5), 19-32

HASZNOS, 2005: HASZNOS, A., ”A Greek Accusativus cum Infinitivo

Construction and its Equivalents in Coptic” ZÄS 132, 92-93

HASZNOS, 2004/2005: HASZNOS, A., ”Die Struktur der Konsekutivsätze im

koptischen Neuen Testament“ Enchoria 29, 32-43

HÄGG, 1978: HÄGG, T., “Some Remarks on the Use of Greek in Nubia“

in J.M. Plumley (ed.), Nubian Studies. Proceedings os the

Symposium for Nubian Studies, Selwyn College, Cambridge

HINTZE, 1947: HINTZE, F., Die Haupttendenzen der ägyptischen

Sprachentwicklung, Zeitschrift für Phonetik und

Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 1/3.

HINTZE, 1950: HINTZE, F., „Konversion“ und „analytische Tendenz“ in

der ägyptischen Sprachentwicklung, Zeitschrift für

Phonetik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 4.

HOPFNER, 1918: HOPFNER, Th., Über Form und Gebrauch der griechischen

Lehnwörter in der koptisch-sahidischen

Apophthegmenversion, Wien

HORROCKS, 1997 HORROCKS, G., Greek. A History of the Language and its

Speakers, London and New York

141

IRSAY-NAGY, 2006: IRSAY-NAGY, B. J., “A Journey to Egypt in 1483 and the

Beginnings of Coptic Studies in Europe“ Acta Ant. Hung.

46, 129-149

JERNSTEDT, 1929: JERNSTEDT, P., “Graeco-Coptica“ ZÄS 64, 122-135

JOHNSON, 1976: JOHNSON, J., The Demotic Verbal System, SAOC 38,

Chicago

KIRCHER, 1636: KIRCHER, A., Prodromus Coptus sive Aegyptiacus … in quo

cum Linguae Coptae, sive Aegyptiacae, quondam

Pharaonicae, origo, aetas, vicissitudo, inclinatio…, Romae

KIRCHER, 1643: KIRCHER, A., Lingua Aegyptiaca Restituta, opus

tripartitum…, Romae (both works by Kircher are referred to

in Pfeiffer’s study)

LEFORT, 1947: LEFORT, L.TH., ”A propos de syntaxe copte. tare mare

MpRtre”, Le Muséon 60, 7-28.

LEFORT, 1948: LEFORT, L.TH., “jekas dans le NT sahidique” Le Muséon

61, 65-73

LEFORT, 1950: LEFORT, L.Th., „Gréco-copte“ in: Coptic Studies in Honor

of Walter Ewing Crum, Boston: The Byzantine Institute

LICHTHEIM, 1964: LICHTHEIM, M., “Notes on Late-Egyptian Conjunctive”

Studies in Egyptology and Linguistics in Honour of H.J.

Polotsky, edited by H.B. Rosén, Jerusalem, 1-8

LÜDDECKENS, 1980: LÜDDECKENS, E., ”Ägypten“, Die Sprachen im römischen

Reich der Kaiserzeit. Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 40,

Cologne, 241-265

METZGER, 1977: METZGER, B. M., The Early Versions of the New Testament,

Oxford

MINK, 1972: MINK, G., Die koptischen Versionen des Neuen Testaments

in: K. ALAND (ed.), Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen

142

Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare, ANTF

5, 160-299.

MORENZ, 1952: MORENZ, S., “Die Nqi–Konstruktion als sprachliche und

stilistische Erscheinung des Koptischen“, ASAE 52, 1-15.

NAGEL, 1971: NAGEL, P., ’Die Einwirkung des griechischen auf die

Entstehung der koptischen Literatursprache’ F. Altheim – R.

Stiehl (eds.), Christentum am Roten Meer , vol.1 Berlin: De

Gruyter, 327-355.

NAGEL, 1974: NAGEL, P., „Diktion der römischen Kommandosprache in

den Praecepta Pachomius” ZÄS 101, 114-120

NAGEL, 1998: NAGEL, P., ”Ein koptisches Fragment aus Kyrill von

Jerusalem (Cat. VI 22-24) über die Anfänge des

Manichäismus (P. Heid. Inv. Kopt. 450)”, Études Coptes IV

(Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte 8), 40-52

NAGEL, 1991: NAGEL, P. ”Lycopolitan (or Lyco-Diospolitan or

Subakhmimic)” in CE vol. 8, 151-159

ORÉAL, 1999: ORÉAL, E., “Contact Linguistique. Le cas du rapport entre le

grec et le copte“, Lalies. Actes des sessions de linguistique

et de littérature 19, 289-306

PFEIFFER, 1702: PFEIFFER, A., Critica Sacra, De Sacri Codicis Partitione,

Editionibus Variis, Linguis Originalibus … Lipsiae

POLOTSKY, 1944: POLOTSKY, H. J., Études de syntax copte, Le Caire 1944

POLOTSKY, 1950: POLOTSKY, H. J., ”Modes grecs en copte?”, Malinine, M.

(ed.), Coptic Studies in Honour of Walter Ewing Crum, The

Byzantine Institute, 73-90

POLOTSKY, 1976 : POLOTSKY, H. J., “Les transpositions du verbe en égyptien

classique”, IOS 6, 1-50.

143

POLOTSKY, 1987a: POLOTSKY, H. J., Grundlagen des koptischen Satzbaus, I,

Georgia: Scholars Press Decatur

POLOTSKY, 1987b: POLOTSKY, H. J., ”Egyptology, Coptic Studies and the

Egyptian Language”, Ray, J. D. (ed.), Lingua Sapientissima

5, Cambridge (Faculty of Oriental Studies), 5 – 21

RICHTER, 2004: RICHTER, T. S., ”Zur Sprache thebanischer Rechtsurkunden:

auffällige Konstruktionen im Bereich der Zweiten Tempora”

in: Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium

(Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of

Coptic Studies, Leiden, 27 August – 2 September 2000),

OLA 133

RICHTER, 2008a RICHTER, T. S., ’Coptic Letters’, AS/EA LXII/3, 739-770.

RICHTER, 2008b RICHTER, T. S., Lexical Borrowing into Coptic. A Case

Study in Loanword Typology, paper at the Leipzig

Conference 2008 (not yet published)

ROUSSEAU, 1985: ROUSSEAU, P., Pachomius: The Making of a Community in

Fourth-Century Egypt, Berkely: University of California

Press

RUDNITZKY, 1956: RUDNITZKY, G., ”Zum Sprachgebrauch Schenutes. Teil I-

III”, ZÄS 81, 48-58; 129-139; 143-151

RUBENSON, 1992: RUBENSON, S., „St. Antony, „The First Real Coptic

Author“?” In: Actes du IVe Congrès copte. Louvain-la-

Neuve, 5-10 septembre 1988, Louvain-la-Neuve, 16-27.

RUBENSON, 1995: RUBENSON, S., The Letters of St Antony. Monasticism and

the Making of a Saint, Minneapolis

SCHENKE 1991: SCHENKE, H-M., ”Mesokemic (or Middle-Egyptian) ” in CE,

vol. 8, 162-164

144

SCHENKEL, 1966 SCHENKEL, W., “Die Konversion, ein Epiphänomen der

kemischen (ägyptisch-koptischen) Sprachgeschichte“,

MDAIK 21, 123-132

SCHÜSSLER, 2008: SCHÜSSLER, K., “Peculiarities of the Coptic Translations of

the Gospel of John“ JCoptS 10, 41-62

SETHE, 1925: SETHE, K., “Das Verhältnis zwischen Demotisch und

Koptisch und seine Lehre für die Geschichte der

ägyptischen Sprache“ ZDMG 79, 290-316

SHISHA-HALEVY, 1986: SHISHA-HALEVY, A., Coptic Grammatical Categories:

Structural Studies in the Syntax of Shenoutean Sahidic,

AnOr 53, Rome: Pontificum Institutum Biblicum

SHISHA-HALEVY, 1990: SHISHA-HALEVY, A., “The ‘Tautological Infinitive’ in

Coptic: a Structural Examination” JCoptS 1, 99-127

SHISHA-HALEVY, 1991: SHISHA-HALEVY, A., “Sahidic” in: CE, vol. 8, 193-202

SHISHA-HALEVY, 1995: SHISHA-HALEVY, A., “Some Reflections on the Egyptian

Conjunctive”, Divitiae Aegypti. Koptologische und

verwandte Studien zu Ehren von Martin Krause,

Wiesbaden, 300-314.

SIJPESTEIJN, 1978: SIJPESTEIJN, P. J., “Copticisms in Greek Documents?” Aeg

58, 172-3.

SNYDER, 2005: SNYDER, G., “Review on Bentley Layton: A Coptic

Grammar” Society of Biblical Literature

(http://www.bookreviews.org)

STEINDORFF, 1891: STEINDORFF, G., “Neue koptische Urkunden aus Theben”,

ZÄS 29, 1.f. (cited from RICHTER, 2004)

THEODORSSON, 1977: THEODORSSON, S.-T., The Phonology of Ptolemaic Koine,

Göteborg

145

THOMASON – KAUFMAN,1988: THOMASON, S. G. – KAUFMAN, T., Language Contact,

Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics, University of

California Press

VERBEECK, 1991: VERBEECK, B., “Greek Language” in CE 4, 1165-1170.

VOLTEN, 1964: VOLTEN, A., “The Late Egyptian Conjunctive” in: Rosén,

H.B. (ed.), Studies in Egyptology and Linguistics in Honour

of H.J. Polotsky, Jerusalem, 54-80.

VÖÖBUS, 1954: VÖÖBUS, A., Early Versions of the New Testament:

Manuscript Studies, Stockholm

WEIß, 1966: WEIß, H-F., “Zum Problem der griechischen Fremd-und

Lehnwörter in den Sprachen des christlichen Orients“,

Helikon 6, 139-209.

WEIß, 1969: WEIß, H-F., “Ein Lexikon der griechischen Wörter im

Koptischen” ZÄS 96, 79-80.

YOUNG, 1969 YOUNG, D.W., “Precept”: A Study in Coptic Terminology”,

Orientalia 38, 505-519.

TEXT EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS CONSULTED:

ALAND ET AL., 1994: ALAND, B. – ALAND, K. –KARAVIDOPOULOS, J. – MARTINI,

C.M. – METZGER, B.M. (eds.), The Greek New Testament,

Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 19944

ALFORD, 1849: ALFORD, H., The Greek New Testament: with a Critically

Revised Text: a Digest of Various Readings: Marginal

References to Verbal and Idiomatic Use: Prolegomena: and

a Critical and Exegatical Commentary, London: Francis &

John Rivington

BARTELINK, 1994: BARTELINK, G. J. M., Athanasius: Vie d’Antoine, Sources

Chrétiennes 400, Paris: Éditions du Cerf

146

ELANSKAYA, 1991: ELANSKAYA, A. I., Coptic Literary Texts of the Pushkin

State Fine Arts Museum in Moscow, Studia Aegyptiaca XIII,

Budapest

GARITTE, 1949: GARITTE, G., S. Antonii Vitae versio Sahidica, CSCO 117,

Scriptores coptici IV, 1, Paris

GRIESBACH, 1909: GRIESBACH, J. J., Novum Testamentum Graece, London: J.

MacKinlay, et Cuthell et Martin

HORNER, 1969: HORNER, G. (ed.), The Coptic Version of the New Testament

in the Southern Dialect vols 7, Osnabrück: Otto Zeller

LEFORT, 1956: LEFORT, L.TH., Oeuvres de S. Pachom et de ses disciples,

CSCO 159, Scriptores coptici 23, Louvain

LEIPOLDT, 1908: LEIPOLDT, J., Sinuthii archimandritae vita et opera omnia

III, CSCO 42, Scriptores coptici 4, Louvain

MIGNE, 1857-66: MIGNE, J.P., Patrologia Graeca, vol. LXV, Paris

NESTLE – ALAND, 1993: NESTLE, E. – ALAND, K., Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th

revised edition, Stuttgart 1993 in: New Testament

Transcripts: http://nttranscripts.uni-muenster.de

ORLANDI, – QUECKE, 1974: ORLANDI, T. – QUECKE, H., Papiri della universitá degli

studio di Milano (P. Mil. Copti), Milano

PEREZ, 1984: PEREZ, G. A., El evangelio de San Mateo en copto sahidico,

Madrid

QUECKE, 1984: QUECKE, H., Das Johannesevangelium saidisch. Text der

Handschrift Ppalau Rib. Inv.Nr. 183 mit den Varianten der

Handschriften 813 und 814 der Chester Beatty Library und

der Handschrift 924569, Roma-Barcelona

SCHENKE, 1981: SCHENKE, H-M. (ed.), Das Matthäus-Evangelium im

mittelägyptischen Dialekt des Koptischen (Codex Scheide),

TU 127, Berlin: Akademie Verlag

147

SHISHA-HALEVY, 1975: SHISHA-HALEVY, A., ”Unpublished Shenoutiana in the

British Library” Enchoria V, 53-108

THOMPSON, 1924: THOMPSON, SIR H., The Gospel of St. John According to the

Earliest Coptic Manuscript, London

VEILLEUX, 1980: VEILLEUX, A. (transl.), Pachomian Coinonia I: The Life of

Saint Pachomius and His Desciples; II: Pachomian

Chronichles and Rules; III: Instructions, Letters, and Other

Writings of St. Pachomius and His Desciples, Michigan

YOUNG, 1993 : YOUNG, D. W., Coptic Manuscripts from the White

Monastery: Works of Shenute, Textband, (Mitteilungen aus

der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen

Nationalbibliothek, XII. Folge), Wien

ZOEGA, 1973: ZOEGA, G., Catalogus Codicum Copticorum Manu

Scriptorum, Hildesheim-New York: Georg Olms Verlag

(Nachdruck)

GRAMMARS CONSULTED:

ALLEN, 2000: ALLEN, J. P., Middle-Egyptian. An Introduction to the

Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs, Cambridge

University Press

BLASS – DEBRUNNER, 1961: BLASS, F. – DEBRUNNER, A., A Greek Grammar of the New

Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, transl. by

R.W. Funk, Chicago and London

BORNEMANN – RISCH, 1999: BORNEMANN, E. – RISCH, E., Görög nyelvtan (transl.by

Mayer, P.), Budapest 1999 (Griechische Grammatik von

Eduard Bornemann unter Mitwirkung von Ernst Risch,

Frankfurt am Main 1978)

ČERNY – GROLL, 1978: ČERNY, J. – GROLL, S. I., A Late Egyptian Grammar, Rome

148

DE WITT BURTON, 1898: DE WITT BURTON, E., Moods and Tenses of New Testament

Greek, Chicago, 3rd edition

GARDINER, 1957 GARDINER, SIR A.H., Egyptian Grammar. Being an

Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs, Oxford: Griffith

Institute, 3rd edition

GIGNAC, 1976-81: GIGNAC, F.A., A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the

Roman and Byzantine Periods, 2 vols. Testi e documenti per

lo studio dell‘antichitá 55, Milan

JOHNSON, 1976: JOHNSON, J., The Demotic Verbal System, in: SAOC 38,

Chicago

JUNGE, 1996: JUNGE, F., Einführung in die Grammatik des

Neuägyptischen, Wiesbaden

LAYTON, 2004: LAYTON, B., A Coptic Grammar with Chrestomathy and

Glossary. Sahidic Dialect (Porta Linguarium Orientalium

20), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag (second edition)

LOPRIENO, 1995: LOPRIENO, A., Ancient Egyptian. A Linguistic Introduction,

Cambridge University Press

LUFT, 1983: LUFT U., A démotikus nyelv, Budapest

MOULTON ET AL., 1963: MOULTON, J.H. – HOWARD, W.F. – TURNER, N., A Grammar

of New Testament Greek, 5 vols, Edinburgh 1906-1976 (I

am always referring to vol. 3 (1963))

PORTER, 1992: PORTER, S.E., Idioms of the Greek New Testament,

Sheffield: JSOT Press

RADERMACHER, 1925: RADERMACHER, L., Neutestamentliche Grammatik,

Tübingen: Verlag von J.C.B. Mohr

STERN, 1880: STERN, L., Koptische Grammatik, Leipzig: T.O. Weigel

TILL, 1961: TILL, W.C., Koptische Grammatik, Leipzig

149

WOLFF, 1956 WOLFF, F., Griechische Satzlehre, Berlin: Volk und Wissen

Volkseigener Verlag

CONCORDANCES CONSULTED:

DRAGUET, R., Index copte et grec-copte de la Concordance du Nouveau Testament

Sahidique (CSCO 124, 173, 183, 185), CSCO 196, Subs 16, Louvain 1960

LEFORT, L. TH., Concordance du Nouveau Testament I. Les mots d’origin grecque, CSCO

183, subs. 13, Louvain 1964

SCHMOLLER, A., Handkonkordanz zum Griechischen Neuen Testament, Stuttgart :

Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 3rd revised edition 1994

WILMET, M., Concordance du Nouveau Testament Sahidique, CSCO 173, Subs. 13,

vols.2, Louvain 1957

DICTIONARIES CONSULTED:

BAUER, W., Griechisch – deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments

und frühchristlichen Literatur, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin – New York 1988

CRUM, W.E., A Coptic Dictionary, Oxford 1939

GYÖRKÖSY A. – KAPITÁNFFY I. – TEGYEY I., Ógörög – magyar nagyszótár, Budapest

1993

LAMPE, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford University Press 1961

LIDDELL, H. G. – SCOTT, R., A Greek – English Lexicon, Oxford University Press, 9th

revised edition, 1996

VARGA ZS., Újszövetségi görög – magyar szótár, Budapest 1992

WESTENDORF, W., Koptisches Handwörterbuch, Heidelberg 1965-1977

150

FURTHER READING

BARNS, J. W. B., “Egypt and the Greek Romance” Mitteilungen aus der

Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek 5 (1956), 29-36.

BARNS, J. W. B., “Shenute as a Historical Source” in Actes du Xè congrès international

de papyrologues, 1964

BÖHLIG, A., Die griechischen Lehnwörter im sahidischen und bohairischen Neuen

Testament, Studien zur Erforschung des christlichen Aegyptus, Heft 2, München 1954.

BÖHLIG, A., Ein Lexikon der griechischen Wörter im Koptischen. Die griechisch-

lateinischen Lehnwörter in den koptischen manichäischen Texten, München 1958

BORGHOUTS, J. F. ”A New Approach to the Late Egyptian Conjunctive“ ZÄS 106 (1979),

14-24.

BOWMAN, A. K., Egypt after the Pharaohs, Oxford University Press 1990

BROWN, G. M., ”Coptico-Graeca: The Sahidic Version of St. Athanasius’ Vita Antonii”

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 12, 1971, 59-64.

BUTCHER, E.L., The History of the Church of Egypt, 2 vols., London 1897

CLARYSSE, W., ”Egyptian Scribes Writing Greek”, Chronique d’Égypte 68 (1993) 186-

201

DEPAUW, M., The Demotic Letter. A Study of Epistolographic Scribal Traditions Against

their Intra- and Intercultural Background, Demotische Studien 14, Sommerhausen 2006

DEPUYDT, L., ”New Horizons in Coptic and Egyptian Linguistics“ Chronique d’Égypte

53 (1988), 391-406

DUMMER, J., ”Angaben der Kirchenväter über das Koptische” in: NAGEL, P. (ed.),

Probleme der koptischen Literatur, 17-57, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg

1968

EMMEL, S., “The Mystery of FR – BN Copte 13 and the ‘Codex St. Louis’: When Was a

Coptic Manuscript First Brought to Europe in ‘Modern’ Times?”, JCoptS 6 (2004), 5-29

151

FUNK, W-P., “On a Semantic Typology of Conditional Sentences”, Folia Linguistica 19

(1985) 365-413

FUNK, W-P., ”Toward a Synchronic Morphology of Coptic“ in: WILSON, R. McL., (ed.),

The Future of Coptic Studies, Leiden 1978, 104-124

FUNK, W-P., ”Beiträge des mittelägyptischen Dialekts zum koptischen

Konjugationssystem“ in YOUNG, D. W., (ed.), Studies Presented to Hans Jakob Polotsky,

Massachusetts 1981, 177-210

GRIFFITH, F. Ll., The Date of the Old Coptic Texts and their Relation to Christian Coptic,

ZÄS 39 (1901) 78-82

HASZNOS, A., ”A Case Where Coptic is More Syndetic than Greek” Acta Ant. Hung. 46(2006), 91-97

JOEST, Ch., “Horsiese als Redaktor von Pachoms Katechese 1 ‘An einen grollenden

Mönch’.’ JCoptS 9 (2007) 61-94

KASSER, R., “Les temps seconds dans le Papyrus bilingue (copte et grec) de Hambourg”

in YOUNG, D. W., (ed.), Studies Presented to Hans Jakob Polotsky, Pirtle and Polson

Publishers 1981, 211-220.

KRAUSE, M., “Die Koptologie im Gefüge der Wissenschaften” ZÄS 100 (1974), 108-125.

LEE, A. D., Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity, London and New York: Routledge

2000

LEWIS, N., Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule, Oxford 1983

LUCCHESI, E., “Un mot grec rare attesté en copte (Shenouté)” Philologus 121 (1977),

317-318

MILNE, J. G., A History of Egypt Under Roman Rule, London: Methuen 1898

OSING, J., Der spätägyptische Papyrus BM 10808, Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 33,

Wiesbaden 1976

PEREMANS, W., ”Le bilinguisme dans les relations gréco-egyptiennes sous les Lagides“

Studia Hellenistica 27. Egypt and the Hellenistic World, Lovani 1983

152

POLOTSKY, H. J., “The Coptic Conjugation System”, CP, 392-422

POLOTSKY, H. J., “Zur koptischen Wortstellung“, Orientalia 30 (1961), 294-313

SCHÜSSLER, K. (hrsg.), Biblia coptica. Die koptischen Bibeltexte, Band 1: Das sahidische

Alte und Neue Testament, Lieferung 1: sa 1-20, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag 1995

SCHÜSSLER, K. (hrsg.), Biblia coptica. Die koptischen Bibeltexte, Band 3: Das sahidische

Alte und Neue Testament. Vollständiges Verzeichnis mit Standorten, Lieferung 1: sa 500-

520, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag 2001

SHISHA-HALEVY, A., “Apodotic efswtM “ Le Muséon 86 (1973), 455-66

SHISHA-HALEVY, A., “Protatic efswtM: A hitherto Unnoticed Coptic Tripartite

Conjugation-Form and Its Diachronic Connections”, Orientalia 43 (1974), 369-381

SHISHA-HALEVY, A., “The Circumstantial Present as an Antecedent-less (i.e.

Substantival) Relative in Coptic”, JEA 62 (1976), 134-37

SHISHA-HALEVY, A., “The Coptic Circumstancial Present with an Empty (Impersonal)

Actor-Suffix and Adverbial Function”, JEA 61 (1975), 256-57

SHISHA-HALEVY, A., Coptic Grammatical Categories: A Course for Academic and

Private Study, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 30, Leuven: Peeters Press 1988

SHISHA-HALEVY, A., Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy in: Orientalia Lovaniensia

Analecta 30, Leuven: Peeters Press 1988

SIDARUS, A., “Medieval Coptic Grammars in Arabic: The Coptic muqaddinat”, JCoptS 3

(2001), 63-81

SIDARUS, A., “Plurilinguisme en Égypte sous la domination gréco-romaine” JCoptS 10

(2008) 183-202

TILL, W. C., Coptic and its Value, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 40, No.1., 229-

258, 1957

TIMM, S., Das christlich-koptische Ägypten in arabischer Zeit 1-6, Wiesbaden 1984 –

1992

WEIGANDT, P., „Zum Text von Joh. X, 7“, Novum Testamentum IX (1967) 43-51, Leiden

153

WEIß, H-F., Beobachtungen zur Frage der griechischen Komponente in der Sprache des

Schenute, Halle 1968 (Wiss.Beitr.Univ.Halle-Wittenberg 1968/1), 173-185

WESSELY, K., Die griechischen Lehnwörter der sahidischen und bohairischen

Psalmenversion, Wien 1910

“The rest is silence…”

Shakespeare